EFFECTIVENESS OF EU LAW IN MEMBER STATES

When the original Rome Treaty was drafted, it was envisaged by the authors that the procedure as set out in what is now article 258 T.F.E.U. (infringement procedure) would be the primary means by which EU law is enforced - a “centralized” and “public” form of enforcement assured by the ECJ, the Comm...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: ANCA-MAGDA VLAICU
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Nicolae Titulescu University Publishing House 2011-04-01
Series:Challenges of the Knowledge Society
Subjects:
Online Access:http://cks.univnt.ro/uploads/cks_2011_articles/index.php?dir=01_law%2F&download=cks_2011_law_art_057.pdf
id doaj-799e044e85fe40cfb0ce5386d2600af8
record_format Article
spelling doaj-799e044e85fe40cfb0ce5386d2600af82020-11-24T23:05:49ZengNicolae Titulescu University Publishing HouseChallenges of the Knowledge Society2068-77962011-04-011-549559EFFECTIVENESS OF EU LAW IN MEMBER STATESANCA-MAGDA VLAICUWhen the original Rome Treaty was drafted, it was envisaged by the authors that the procedure as set out in what is now article 258 T.F.E.U. (infringement procedure) would be the primary means by which EU law is enforced - a “centralized” and “public” form of enforcement assured by the ECJ, the Commission and Member States, which was itself innovative, since most international treaties contained no such mechanism. It was a point of view shared by Member States, who could see no reason why provisions of EC Treaties should be treated any differently from those of other international treaties. Thus, on the one hand, the effect of international treaties was generally governed by the principle that they cannot by themselves create rights and obligations for individuals, but only for contracting states - therefore, states were considered the only ones entitled to claim respect of international norms in international courts (individuals and national courts were excluded); on the other hand, as the text of EC treaties made no specific reference to the effect their provisions were to have, the general rule governing international treaties should also apply to them. The European Court of Justice disagreed and engaged in a prolonged judicial activism, resulting in the creation of other legal mechanisms by which national courts and individuals (rather than ECJ, Commission and Member States) were to take the leading role in the enforcement of EU law - a “decentralized” and “private” form of enforcement, governed by three interrelated principles developed jurisprudentially by the ECJ: direct effect, indirect effect and state liability. In this context, the purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of actual means of EU law enforcement, as presented above; to this end, there will be considered the legal/judicial basis, scope, limits and practical difficulties of the ”centralized” and “decentralized” form of enforcement.http://cks.univnt.ro/uploads/cks_2011_articles/index.php?dir=01_law%2F&download=cks_2011_law_art_057.pdfinfringementdirect effectincidental horizontal effectindirect effectstate liability
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author ANCA-MAGDA VLAICU
spellingShingle ANCA-MAGDA VLAICU
EFFECTIVENESS OF EU LAW IN MEMBER STATES
Challenges of the Knowledge Society
infringement
direct effect
incidental horizontal effect
indirect effect
state liability
author_facet ANCA-MAGDA VLAICU
author_sort ANCA-MAGDA VLAICU
title EFFECTIVENESS OF EU LAW IN MEMBER STATES
title_short EFFECTIVENESS OF EU LAW IN MEMBER STATES
title_full EFFECTIVENESS OF EU LAW IN MEMBER STATES
title_fullStr EFFECTIVENESS OF EU LAW IN MEMBER STATES
title_full_unstemmed EFFECTIVENESS OF EU LAW IN MEMBER STATES
title_sort effectiveness of eu law in member states
publisher Nicolae Titulescu University Publishing House
series Challenges of the Knowledge Society
issn 2068-7796
publishDate 2011-04-01
description When the original Rome Treaty was drafted, it was envisaged by the authors that the procedure as set out in what is now article 258 T.F.E.U. (infringement procedure) would be the primary means by which EU law is enforced - a “centralized” and “public” form of enforcement assured by the ECJ, the Commission and Member States, which was itself innovative, since most international treaties contained no such mechanism. It was a point of view shared by Member States, who could see no reason why provisions of EC Treaties should be treated any differently from those of other international treaties. Thus, on the one hand, the effect of international treaties was generally governed by the principle that they cannot by themselves create rights and obligations for individuals, but only for contracting states - therefore, states were considered the only ones entitled to claim respect of international norms in international courts (individuals and national courts were excluded); on the other hand, as the text of EC treaties made no specific reference to the effect their provisions were to have, the general rule governing international treaties should also apply to them. The European Court of Justice disagreed and engaged in a prolonged judicial activism, resulting in the creation of other legal mechanisms by which national courts and individuals (rather than ECJ, Commission and Member States) were to take the leading role in the enforcement of EU law - a “decentralized” and “private” form of enforcement, governed by three interrelated principles developed jurisprudentially by the ECJ: direct effect, indirect effect and state liability. In this context, the purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of actual means of EU law enforcement, as presented above; to this end, there will be considered the legal/judicial basis, scope, limits and practical difficulties of the ”centralized” and “decentralized” form of enforcement.
topic infringement
direct effect
incidental horizontal effect
indirect effect
state liability
url http://cks.univnt.ro/uploads/cks_2011_articles/index.php?dir=01_law%2F&download=cks_2011_law_art_057.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT ancamagdavlaicu effectivenessofeulawinmemberstates
_version_ 1725625572123475968