Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Deference in International Courts and TribunalsStandard of Review and Margin of Appreciation$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Lukasz Gruszczynski and Wouter Werner

Print publication date: 2014

Print ISBN-13: 9780198716945

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2014

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716945.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 15 June 2019

National Procedural Choices before the Court of Justice of the European Union

National Procedural Choices before the Court of Justice of the European Union

Chapter:
(p.175) 10 National Procedural Choices before the Court of Justice of the European Union
Source:
Deference in International Courts and Tribunals
Author(s):

Pieter Van Cleynenbreugel

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716945.003.0010

Chapter 10 analyses the standards of review relied upon by the CJEU in its assessment of national procedural choices, and in particular the role of the notion of mitigated procedural autonomy—a deferential scope of review, according to which Member States remain competent to determine their own procedural rules for the application EU law in their legal systems with the Court only intervening in cases where equivalence or effectiveness requirements have not been complied with. Consequently, EU-structured notions of equivalence and effectiveness provide mitigating conditions to unfettered national procedural competences in the area of EU law. The chapter argues that four different review standards can be inferred within the seemingly coherent narrative of mitigated procedural autonomy. These four standards allow the CJEU to evaluate national procedural choices on a sliding scale of comprehensiveness. The simultaneous co-existence of such divergent standards can be explained by a crypto-federal understanding of European integration.

Keywords:   European integration, Court of Justice of the European Union, national courts and tribunals, procedural autonomy, effective judicial protection, comprehensive review, Charter of Fundamental Rights, standard of review

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .