Author(s) Natacha Ribeiro
Advisor(s) Alessandra Silveira
Year 2016
Synopsis Among the procedure instruments of the Union litigation, the preliminary ruling (article 267 of the FEU Treaty) comes forward as a means of judicial cooperation, aiming to promote the uniform/homogeneous application of the EU law. Nevertheless, over time, it turned into an alternative of judicial protection, given the weaknesses of the execution of the action for annulment. Anyway, the preliminary ruling also brings with it enforcement difficulties in the light of the principle of effective judicial protection (article 19 (1), § 2, of the EU Treaty) and the fundamental right of all EU citizens to an effective remedy (article 47, § 1, of the CFREU). This study approaches the issue of the temporal delay that occurs in the context of preliminary ruling procedure, especially in cases involving situations requiring a particular promptness. Such is the case, namely, of procedures whose questions arise from the area of freedom, security and justice (part three, title V, of the FEU Treaty) or whose factual circumstances embody a particular urgency, which occurs, for example, when a child is wrongfully removed or retained in another Member State by one of its parents, or yet when a person is deprived of liberty and whose release depends on the response of the Court of Justice. In an attempt to address these difficulties, the EU legislator undertook revisions of the preliminary ruling procedure, by creating exceptional and derogatory mechanisms of the ordinary ruling procedure: the expedited preliminary ruling procedure (articles 105 and 106 of the RPCJ) and the urgent preliminary ruling procedure (articles 107 to 114 of the RPCJ). As a corollary of the litigation growth falling under those areas, our concern relates to the results, over the years, of these exceptional ruling procedures on the mitigation of temporal delay, required by the preliminary ruling procedure, in the light of effective judicial protection. Mainly through a jurisprudential analysis, we seek to perceive, in particular, if these exceptional mechanisms protect adequately the guarantees of citizens.
See more here.
Author(s) Natacha Ribeiro
Advisor(s) Alessandra Silveira
Year 2016
Synopsis Among the procedure instruments of the Union litigation, the preliminary ruling (article 267 of the FEU Treaty) comes forward as a means of judicial cooperation, aiming to promote the uniform/homogeneous application of the EU law. Nevertheless, over time, it turned into an alternative of judicial protection, given the weaknesses of the execution of the action for annulment. Anyway, the preliminary ruling also brings with it enforcement difficulties in the light of the principle of effective judicial protection (article 19 (1), § 2, of the EU Treaty) and the fundamental right of all EU citizens to an effective remedy (article 47, § 1, of the CFREU). This study approaches the issue of the temporal delay that occurs in the context of preliminary ruling procedure, especially in cases involving situations requiring a particular promptness. Such is the case, namely, of procedures whose questions arise from the area of freedom, security and justice (part three, title V, of the FEU Treaty) or whose factual circumstances embody a particular urgency, which occurs, for example, when a child is wrongfully removed or retained in another Member State by one of its parents, or yet when a person is deprived of liberty and whose release depends on the response of the Court of Justice. In an attempt to address these difficulties, the EU legislator undertook revisions of the preliminary ruling procedure, by creating exceptional and derogatory mechanisms of the ordinary ruling procedure: the expedited preliminary ruling procedure (articles 105 and 106 of the RPCJ) and the urgent preliminary ruling procedure (articles 107 to 114 of the RPCJ). As a corollary of the litigation growth falling under those areas, our concern relates to the results, over the years, of these exceptional ruling procedures on the mitigation of temporal delay, required by the preliminary ruling procedure, in the light of effective judicial protection. Mainly through a jurisprudential analysis, we seek to perceive, in particular, if these exceptional mechanisms protect adequately the guarantees of citizens.
See more here.