Skip to main content

Overview: Judicial Protection of Individual Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Individual Rights in EU Law
  • 793 Accesses

Abstract

This part will seek to give an overview of the notion of a European Union law right from an external perspective, taking as our starting point not the right, but judicial protection of it. Hence, it is a sort of functional analysis; the initial aim is to shed light on the role rights actually play within the Union legal order, by looking at how the remedy is linked to the infringed right in order to better understand the notion of rights as such. As the purpose of this exercise is to provide some background to the main issue of when an individual must enjoy the protection that comes with the position as right holder, it is not a complete presentation of remedies for breach of European Union law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cf., e.g., Case C-370/12 Pringle [2012] (OJ 2013 C 26, p. 15) (EU:C:2012:756), para 135.

  2. 2.

    Cf., e.g., Case 283/81 CILFIT [1982] ECR 3415, para 20.

  3. 3.

    Cf. Prechal (2006), p. 301. Cf., also, Lawson (1977), p. 178.

  4. 4.

    Cf., e.g., Zakrzewski (2005).

  5. 5.

    Cf. Eilmansberger (2004), p. 1199 (footnote 2).

  6. 6.

    Joined Cases C-6/60 and C-9/90 Francovich [1991] ECR I-5357, para 41.

  7. 7.

    Cf. Sect. 11.3.

  8. 8.

    Case C-470/03 AGM-COSMET [2007] ECR 1-2749, para 88.

  9. 9.

    Cf., e.g., Koziol (2012), p. 19.

  10. 10.

    Cf. Sect. 19.4.1.

  11. 11.

    Prechal (2001), p. 54.

  12. 12.

    Cf. Eilmansberger (2004), pp. 1222–1223.

  13. 13.

    Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1). Cf., from January 2017, Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 349).

  14. 14.

    Cf., e.g., Busch (2012), pp. 394–398. Cf., on the issue of rights, Sect. 15.3.4.

  15. 15.

    Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

  16. 16.

    Joined Cases C-261/07 and C-299/07 VTB-VAB [2009] ECR I-2949, para 52.

  17. 17.

    Cf. Sect. 16.3.4.

  18. 18.

    Case C-234/04 Kapferer [2006] ECR I-2585.

  19. 19.

    Cf., also in this direction, Groussot and Minssen (2007), pp. 405–409.

  20. 20.

    Case C-119/05 Lucchini [2007] ECR I-6199.

  21. 21.

    Joined Cases 314-316/81 and 83/82 Waterkeyn [1982] ECR 4337, para 15.

  22. 22.

    Joined Cases 314-316/81 and 83/82 Waterkeyn [1982] ECR 4337, para 16. Cf., also, Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hack in Case C-426/98 Commission v Greece [2002] ECR I-2793, para 60.

References

  • Busch D (2012) Why MiFID matters to private law – the example of MiFID’s impact on an asset manager’s civil liability. CMLJ 7:386–413

    Google Scholar 

  • Eilmansberger T (2004) The relationship between rights and remedies in EC law: in search of the missing link. CML Rev 41:1199–1246

    Google Scholar 

  • Groussot X, Minssen T (2007) Res Judicata in the Court of Justice case-law: balancing legal certainty with legality? EConstL Rev 3:385–417

    Google Scholar 

  • Koziol H (2012) Basic questions of tort law from a Germanic perspective. Jan Sramek Verlag, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson FH (1977) ‘Das subjektive Recht’ in the English law of torts. ESL 4:176–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Prechal S (2001) Judge-made harmonisation of national procedural rule: a bridging perspective. In: Wouters J, Stuyck J (eds) Principles of proper conduct for supranational, state and private actors in the EU: towards a Ius Commune. Intersentia, Antwerpen–Groningen–Oxford, pp 39–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Prechal S (2006) Member state liability and direct effect: what’s the difference after all? EBL Rev 17:299–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Zakrzewski R (2005) Remedies reclassified. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Thorson, B. (2016). Overview: Judicial Protection of Individual Rights. In: Individual Rights in EU Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32771-6_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32771-6_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32770-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32771-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics