Abstract
A large body of literature has focused on the question of the procedural autonomy of the Member States, especially from the first half of the 1990s onwards. That was in fact a season of important decisions by the European Court of Justice which – as a consequence of their impact, in practice very incisive – brought to the forefront the question of the possible limitations that this jurisprudence may have, or could have, on national procedural legal orders.1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I refer here in particular to the well-known judgements of the ECJ of 19 June 1990, Case 213/89, Factortame and 14 December 1995, Case 312/93, Peterbroeck.
- 2.
As has been recently noted by an influential author, the ‘national approach towards the community law, even in the terminological realm’ should be abandoned and replaced by a more accurate ‘community approach to law.’ See G. Tesauro, Diritto comunitario, p. XIV. Author’s translation.
- 3.
Influential President of the first Chamber of the ECJ at the time of the decision on the Rewe case.
- 4.
In this vein, see also the reflections by W. van Gerven, Of Rights, Remedies and Procedures, p. 524, note n. 114, on the use by the ECJ of the expression ‘procedural rules’ understood in a very broad and indeterminate sense.
- 5.
The ‘sanction’ as ‘… l’ensemble des moyens de contrainte légale qui, dans chaque Etat membre assure le respect du droit en cas de conflit à propos de son application’. See J. Mertens de Wilmars, L’efficacité des différentes techniques nationales de protection juridique contre les violations du droit communautaire par les autorités nationales et les particuliers, p. 379 ff. (390). Author’s translation.
- 6.
Judgement of the ECJ of 13 January 2004, Case 453/00, Kühne & Heitz.
- 7.
The Italian administrative law doctrine categorizes the “ex officio annulment” among the so-called “administrative acts of second degree”: that is, among those acts through which the administration intervenes over its preceding acts modifying them. In particular, it is directed to eliminate, from the outset, the effects of an illegitimate administrative act.
- 8.
In Chap. 2, para. 2.5.
- 9.
See E. Picozza, Diritto amministrativo e diritto comunitario, p. 308. This phenomenon corresponds to the ‘intertwined nature of the EU’s judicial function’ referred to by J. Ziller, Separation of Powers in the European Union’s Intertwined System of Government, p. 31.
- 10.
Among others, see particularly, the monographic studies by F. Astone, Integrazione giuridica europea e giustizia amministrativa: contributo allo studio dell'influenza manifestata dal diritto europeo sul sistema di giustizia amministrativa italiano e sui poteri del giudice amministrativo; M. Burgi, Verwaltungsprozess und Europarecht; R. Caranta, Giustizia amministrativa e diritto comunitario; C.D. Classen, Die Europäisierung der Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit; O. Dubos, Les juridictions nationales, juge communautaire; Th. Dünchheim, Verwaltungsprozessrecht unter europäischem Einfluss. Lastly, see the monographic studies of 2008 by A. Barone, Giustizia comunitaria e funzioni interne and M. Eliantonio, Europeanisation of Administrative Justice? The influence of ECJ’s Case Law in Italy, Germany and England.
- 11.
On this aspect see the conclusions, p. 123 ff.
- 12.
See, for all, G. Greco, Superprimato del diritto europeo: le direttive sui mezzi di ricorso vincolano tutti, ma non la Commissione e la Corte di Giustizia.
- 13.
The quotation refers obviously to the work by the immortal John Milton of 1667, which I read once again while I was writing these pages, drawing interesting starting points for reflection.
- 14.
To this end it is very useful to read the paper by C. Harlow, Voices of Difference in a Plural Community. See also – to quote only a few- G. Cocco, L'insostenibile leggerezza del diritto italiano, p. 629 ff., 636 ff.; S. Tarullo, Il giusto processo amministrativo. Studio sull’effettività della tutela giurisdizionale nella prospettiva europea, p. 77 ff.
- 15.
T. Tridimas, Knocking on Heaven’s door: Fragmentation, Efficiency and Defiance in the Preliminary Reference Procedure.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Galetta, DU. (2010). Introductory Notes, Terminological Issues and Demarcation of the Scope of the Study. In: Procedural Autonomy of EU Member States: Paradise Lost?. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12547-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12547-8_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-12546-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-12547-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)