Legal Systems in Pursuit of Enforceable Rights and Obligations

Q 1. Explain the principle of direct effect and its limitations in relation to directives with reference to case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU).

The concept of direct effect applies in situations where people have applied various legal systems in parallel. The most common instances of occurrence are cases where matters are covered by the supranational and national laws, or federal and state laws. The rational for applying this principle is derived from the unending desire to establish privileges and obligations that are easy to enforce and are legally binding for the interested parties. Scenarios where these regulations are binding and enforceable on individuals apropos each other comprise horizontal direct effect, while scenarios that have states apropos individuals comprise the vertical direct effect. For students who are seeking assistance with law dissertations, understanding the intricacies of direct effect is said to be very critical. Law dissertation help services provide the most valuable insights on navigating complex legal concepts such as direct effect within academic research. The principle exists to address challenges that may arise when dealing with challenges that arise from enforcing coexisting legal systems. In such cases, legal practitioners attempt to advance the provisions of the lower system instead of pursuing a systematic observance of the protocols and other concerns proposed by the higher legal system. In this regard, the principle of direct effect will apply where an individual makes reference to the jurisprudence of their national courts, as opposed to jurisprudence in the European Court. The term direct effect has also been used in environments involving purely domesticated legal systems. This approach is adopted during the interpretation and enforcement of broad constitutional provisions, which accommodate diverse and often conflicting explanations.

Jurists agree that direct effect is applicable only after specific conditions have been satisfied. These include clarity, precision and completeness. The concept of ratione materiae, which denotes the executability of the norm is a critical requirement for its implementation. This provision means these norms should not be written in a manner that suggests they can be clarified by referencing other norms. Similarly, the concept of ratione personae, which ensures the norm concerns a clearly distinguishable group of persons is a critical requirement. Consequently, well-articulated and unambiguous norms are easy to assign a corresponding direct effect. Reality dictates that precision levels often vary. This explains why legal practitioners have confused the general nature of legislative acts endorsed by the European Union. This confusion arises during attempts to distinguish between directives and regulations. Directives are legislative acts that need distinctive domestic interpretations, while regulations do not need separate implementation within the local jurisdiction.

It is a general principle for laws in the European Union to be written in ways that render them directly applicable. Such laws do not require domestic laws or legislative provisions for transposition. This characteristic may not be a norm for all laws in the European Union. There are several provisions that are expressively designed to ensure they do not satisfy the requirements for consideration as directly applicable laws. This category of laws is called directives. It is important to note that in some cases, directives can be transformed into directly effective laws without transposition from member states. Another important characteristic partly associated with the concept of directly effective laws is the concept of primacy. This provision means some legal systems or their provisions are considered superior to the provisions of other legal systems. Similarly, the reality that some provisions of European laws and international laws supersede those of individual jurisdictions does not imply express categorization of direct effectiveness. Similarly, there are some provisions of the European Law and international laws that do not have supremacy over domestic laws.

The concept of direct effect is domiciled in the legislative provisions of the European Union. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) reserves its power and the organ that designates primary and secondary laws as directly effective in the European Union. This trend started after the van Gend en Loos’s seminar, conducted in 1963. This seminar helped European Union member states to develop a comprehensive and harmonious framework of unity and coexistence. This unity played a critical role in empowering the CJEU and entrenching the concept of directly effective laws.

A look at the competition laws within the European Union shows a practical application of the direct effect. The matter of BRT v SV SABAM, 1974 confirmed that laws ART 101 and 102 TEFU exhibit a direct effect which acts horizontally. Horizontal direct effect is an important law for private enforcers. It allows various actors to initiate separate or resultant actions against persons and organizations that infringe on the provisions of 102 TEFU and ART 101. Direct effect plays a critical role in the evaluation of subsequent actions by eliminating the burden of procedural demands placed on the plaintiffs. These requirements involve evidence discovery and other proofs that show the occurrence of infringements. Applying these laws means the plaintiffs retain the burden of demonstrating injury and displaying casualty. In extreme cases unrelated actions can also be influenced by direct effect laws.

Courage v Crehan, 2001 was a landmark case in establishing the principle of compensatory rationale. The judgment explicitly acknowledges that individuals reserve the right to make claims for damages arising from the infringement of competition laws. This position is supported by Manfredi, 2006, which established that damages can be expanded to include instances of profit loss. Another critical outcome of this process was the increase in private citizen use of direct effective laws within their local courts in countries that comprise the European Union member states.

Direct effect within the European Union does not address issues that arise from the question of competition within different jurisdictions that are domicile in the European Union. These norms state the conditions under which competition laws apply to individuals charged with breaching competition laws. The Modernization Regulation of 2003 played a critical role in entrenching the provisions of 102 TEFU and ART 101. The general principle is that all EU norms bearing directly effective categorization should have standard parameters through which they should be read and interpreted. This ideal differs from the reality within the different member states, where local legal systems influence the reading and interpretation of these laws. The challenge occurs because these legal systems are considerably different within each of these diverse territories. Several steps have been proposed to unify norms within the European Union. Competition law attracts immense interest from different stakeholders. It is a challenging field because of the interest around the issue of paying damages. Many stakeholders are convinced that EU member states have formulated laws with diverse approaches to the question of paying damages whenever interested parties make these claims. Overall, the principle of direct effect retains a critical role in the integration of legal systems enforced in various nations. This reality means it is an important contributor to the prominence of European laws within member states.

Q 2. Discuss the extent to which direct access to the European Court System is difficult for individuals, referring to Article 263 TFEU and case-law of the General Court and the Court of Justice of the EU.

The Luxembourg based European Union Court of Justice was established in 1952. It comprises of two institutions, namely the Court of Justice and the General Court. Its primary role is to enforce the uniform interpretation and application of European Union laws across all member states. The court also ensures all European Union institutions located in the member states operate within the dictates of European Union laws. The court offers respite for private citizens and nations that file matters before its judges. Individuals can initiate several actions in this court, including filing matters seeking to initiate actions for annulment. This provision allows private individuals to seek the court’s intervention in annulling laws and other legislative provisions that affect them directly. Similarly, private citizens can petition the court to sanction entities that fail to take actions that would be beneficial to their interests. For example, private individuals who have suffered damages or loss of income because certain agencies failed to take the requisite action can seek redress at the European Union Court of Justice. In such instances, the court’s jurisdiction is limited to matters lodged against agencies and institutions of the European Union, which often affect individuals differently.

Private citizens can get reprieve through two avenues. They can pursue redress indirectly by lodging matters within their national courts. This approach is deemed as the best recourse because the complainants have the benefit of getting assistance from institutions that subscribe to the specific local laws that have been violated. On special occasions, the national courts can refer some matters to the European Union Court of Justice. The second approach involves taking concerns before the General Court. This approach favours persons that have been affected individually through decisions taken by institutions of the European Union. The court has provided a complaint procedure that should be followed b all complainants who hope to have their grievances addressed by the court. Additionally, emphasis is placed on pursuing respite at the national level, before matters are escalated to the European Union court.

Individuals intending to petition the European Union Court of Justice have several resources at their disposal. The first of these is the European Parliament Committee on Petitions. Individuals can lodge petitions to at the European Parliament whenever they feel any aspects of the European Union laws have been violated. They have an option of submitting the petitions online or lodging them through physical avenues. This stage precedes referral of the matters to the European Court for interpretation of these laws and determination of the best recourse for the petitioners.

Individual members can also petition the court through the European Commission. This approach gives them a broader scope of issues to address, because it includes administrative actions, regulations and laws. It means any challenges that arise in the implementation of these aforementioned norms that appears to contradict the European Union laws can be addressed by the court. The European Commission handles all matters raised by members complaining against the violation of Union laws within European Union member states. This avenue often ignores matters lodged against private entities. Similarly, the court will ignore disputes that arise between private entities and individuals. This approach is enforceable when one of the parties in the dispute is a public entity. Petitioners who are left aggrieved after the intervention of the European Commission can escalate their complaints to the European Ombudsman. The right to appeal to the Ombudsman is supported by Article 24 TFEU and Article 228 TFEU.

A complainant should follow specific procedures when presenting their petitions to the European Commission. Taking this approach makes it easy for the commission staff to understand the emerging issues and process the claims. The forms can be filled in any of the European Union languages and it will be processed upon receipt by the commission. Some of the details required include a clear description of the specific reasons that inform a person’s belief that the commission infringed on European Union Laws. It would be helpful for the petitioners to specify the specific laws they feel have been infringed by their aggressors. The complainants should also specify all measures they have implemented in their quest to seek redress before appealing to the European Court.

After receiving these complaints, the European Commission responds to the petitioner within fifteen (15) days. Petitioners who did not use the specified formats during submission of their complaints will be invited to resubmit their matters in the correct manner, while those that have been filed properly will be reviewed over a twelve (12) month period. This evaluation helps the commission to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for it to initiate formal procedures against the nation or agency in question. Complex matters, including those that require additional information are often subjected to an evaluation period that exceeds the standard twelve (12) month period. Similarly, complaints that are judged to have sufficient grounds lead the commission to initiate formal proceedings against the specified country. The court bears the burden of informing the petitioner about the progress of their case.

Confidentiality is critical to the success of this process. This means the European Commission does not divulge the details of the complainants whenever it contacts the specific nations that have been accused in specific petitions. Identities will only be divulged in instances where the complainants have given the commission express authority to share this information with the parent countries. The Commission reserves the right to advise complainants to pursue alternative dispute resolution mechanisms whenever it feels the matter is easier to resolve through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. This advise often includes assistance with the information required for the person to initiate proceedings in the new institution. Similarly, in instances where the Commission determines that the complaint does not cover issues that amount to a breach of the European Union laws, the petitioner is informed before the file is set aside. Transparency is a critical component of the entire process. This reality means complainants have the freedom to furnish the commission with additional information about their queries at any point in the process. Similarly, the complainants can also request an audience with representatives of the European Commission at any point of the process. Overall, emphasis is placed on the proper use of the electronic complaint form when submitting complaints to the European Commission. This tool structures the complaint in a manner that ensures the commission receives all the requisite information about the matter at hand before it determines whether the complaint will proceed to the European Union Court of Justice, or alternative dispute resolution mechanisms or it will be shelved by the Commission.

Looking for further insights on Legal Perspectives on Social Assistance Benefits and Residency Rights for EU Citizens? Click here.