Procedural Autonomy Across Europe

This book investigates the concept of procedural autonomy of Member States in the light of EU law. Does procedural autonomy still adequately describe the powers of national lawmakers and courts to design their civil procedural systems or is it misleading? For the last few decades, Europe has been in a period of increasing Europeanisation of civil procedure. Increased powers of the EU have resulted in hard law, case law and soft law that regulate many types of domestic and cross-border civil cases. These rules have both direct and indirect implications for national procedural law. Gaining insights from selected European jurisdictions (Belgium, England and Wales, Finland, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden), this book explores the concept of procedural autonomy from different angles: Is procedural autonomy an adequate term? How is procedural autonomy understood nationally, and is there variation among the Member States? Do some types of EU law or specific characteristics of EU civil procedural law restrain procedural autonomy more than other? How can these differences be explained and is it possible to identify the sources causing such discrepancies? Procedural Autonomy across Europe is a stimulating discussion for lawyers with an interest in civil procedure.

Is the procedural autonomy of EU Member State a myth or a reality? What should this concept be taken to mean? Starting from the analysis of requirements and principles regulating, generally speaking, the relationships between Member States’ and EU law, this book provides a definition of procedural autonomy able to account for the concept’s inherent limits. Out of an analysis of the more relevant EU jurisprudence, the author identifies the rationale underlying the interventions of the ECJ on issues of procedural autonomy and the common logic that emerges from it; and reveals how, in an unchanged context of ‘procedural autonomy’ of the Member States, national procedural law becomes more and more ‘functionalized’ to the requirements of effectiveness of substantive EU law. As such, we should speak of a ‘functionalized procedural competence’ rather than of procedural autonomy. But this is by no means a case of “Paradise Lost.” The book includes a foreword by Prof. Jürgen Schwarze, one of the founding fathers of European Administrative Law.

This book investigates the concept of procedural autonomy of Member States in the light of EU law. Does procedural autonomy still adequately describe the powers of national lawmakers and courts to design their civil procedural systems or is it misleading? For the last few decades, Europe has been in a period of increasing Europeanisation of civil procedure. Increased powers of the EU have resulted in hard law, case law and soft law that regulate many types of domestic and cross-border civil cases. These rules have both direct and indirect implications for national procedural law.Gaining insights from selected European jurisdictions (Belgium, England and Wales, Finland, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden), this book explores the concept of procedural autonomy from different angles: Is procedural autonomy an adequate term? How is procedural autonomy understood nationally, and is there variation among the Member States? Do some types of EU law or specific characteristics of EU civil procedural law restrain procedural autonomy more than other? How can these differences be explained and is it possible to identify the sources causing such discrepancies?Procedural Autonomy across Europe is a stimulating discussion for lawyers with an interest in civil procedure.

Is the procedural autonomy of EU Member State a myth or a reality? What should this concept be taken to mean? Starting from the analysis of requirements and principles regulating, generally speaking, the relationships between Member States’ and EU law, this book provides a definition of procedural autonomy able to account for the concept’s inherent limits. Out of an analysis of the more relevant EU jurisprudence, the author identifies the rationale underlying the interventions of the ECJ on issues of procedural autonomy and the common logic that emerges from it; and reveals how, in an unchanged context of ‘procedural autonomy’ of the Member States, national procedural law becomes more and more ‘functionalized’ to the requirements of effectiveness of substantive EU law. As such, we should speak of a ‘functionalized procedural competence’ rather than of procedural autonomy. But this is by no means a case of “Paradise Lost.” The book includes a foreword by Prof. Jürgen Schwarze, one of the founding fathers of European Administrative Law.

Die Arbeit untersucht das Spannungsfeld zwischen einem fairen Resultat und Fairplay im Rechtsverfahren. Bislang hat der Europäische Gerichtshof es traditionell abgelehnt, hier eine klare Wahl zu treffen, indem er sich in Vorabentscheidungen im Zusammenhang mit der ex officio-Überprüfung weitgehend dem nationalen Recht unterwirft. Diese Arbeit zeigt, dass spezifische Schutzvorrechte zunehmend substantiell korrekte Urteile hervorgebracht haben, während ein neuer Grundrechtsansatz den individuellen Verfahrensschutz nicht gefördert hat.

National Procedural Autonomy Revisited reconsiders one of the leading principles of European administrative law: the principle of national procedural autonomy. The book shows that, due to different national administrative litigation rules, common European rules are enforced in a fragmented manner. This is illustrated with the example of the judicial enforcement of Directive 2011/92/EU on environmental impact assessment for projects in the legal systems of Germany, England, and the Netherlands. Under the same rule of EU law, litigants are treated procedurally unequal. As well, there are different enforcement chances, and judges come to different conclusions, not because of diverging interpretations of the law, but because of different administrative litigation rules. Subsequently, the book discusses whether it is necessary, desirable, and possible to develop common rules of administrative litigation (in environmental matters) in the EU. It is argued that, by means of the instruments which are available in the EU - specifically legislation, jurisprudence, and comparative scholarship - a more precise common standard for administrative litigation (in environmental matters) should be created, so that the principle is: ubi ius europaeum, ibi remedium europaeum. *** Librarians: ebook available (Series: European Administrative Law - Vol. 10) [Subject: EU Law, Environmental Law]

This book provides precious insight into the dynamics of this new approach to consolidating European Civil Justice, clearly outlining the motivations of the various national and institutional players involved and examining potential obstacles likely to be encountered along the way. The book represents a work of reference for anyone involved in academia, practice or law reform in this subject area.

Whereas individual Member State governments of the European Union occasionally complain about judgments of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), especially when those judgments curtail that State's policy autonomy in a sensitive domain, the collectivity of the Member State governments have agreed in each treaty revision so far to confirm and extend the far-reaching powers which the ECJ possesses for enforcing EU law. The explanation of the paradox can only be that, deep down, the Member States of the EU remain convinced that an effective ECJ with strong enforcement powers is one of the salient features of EU law which have stood the test of time and feel no inclination to clip the wings of the ECJ for fear that this would affect the effectiveness of the European integration process. Nevertheless, the grumblings about single judgments, or about the consistency and direction of the ECJ in particular policy fields, have never ceased and indeed have become more audible in recent years. This book - now available in paperback - deals with the perception that the ECJ quite often does not leave sufficient autonomy to the Member States in developing their own legal and policy choices in areas where European and national competences overlap.

The general rule concerning the application of EU law in the Member States is that, unless the procedural issues are directly regulated in EU primary or secondary law, the Member States possess a so-called 'procedural autonomy.' This rule applies fully to national antitrust proceedings, where the presumed infringement may affect trade between EU Member States (decentralised EU antitrust proceedings). However, the procedural guarantees offered to undertakings in EU antitrust proceedings before the European Commission, often referred to the undertakings' 'rights of defence,' also form a part of the procedural acquis of EU law. This article examines the question whether that procedural acquis, stemming mainly from EU courts's jurisprudence and formulated with regard to the proceedings before the European Commission, should be applied as a standard in national (i.e. Polish) antitrust proceedings where EU law applies.