« Back to all events

Relative Justice - The Judicial and Non-Judicial Review of European Union Legal Acts

Dates:
  • Fri 10 Jan 2020 10.30 - 12.30
  Add to Calendar 2020-01-10 10:30 2020-01-10 12:30 Europe/Paris Relative Justice - The Judicial and Non-Judicial Review of European Union Legal Acts

This thesis advances a relative justice approach to the judicial and non-judicial review of EU legal acts. It specifically compares the kind of justice, predominantly procedural in nature, delivered by the action for annulment before the EU Courts; appeal before the Board of Appeal of the European Chemical Agency and complaint to the European Ombudsman. By exploring the practical functioning of these mechanisms, the thesis seeks to determine whether nonjudicial review mechanisms can fill gaps in the EU system of justice caused by inherent shortcomings of EU judicial review. These shortcomings – the uncertain thoroughness and limited accessibility of judicial review – stem from a constant need to avoid overloading the EU Courts with complex cases and shifting on them too much responsibility for the substance of EU law, rule and decision-making.

The thesis argues that mechanisms for non-judicial review may deliver the kind of justice that is comparable to that normally demanded of judicial review, while avoiding the risk of judicial overload and overreach. This justice is relative to these mechanisms’ institutional and

procedural features – independence, expertise, jurisdiction, review technique, powers, accessibility and participation-oriented procedures. By dint of such features, non-judicial review mechanisms generate argumentative resources that can later be invoked to induce the rational acceptability of reviewed legal acts by the affected parties and citizenry. The structure of such mechanisms may moreover be more adequate to review scientific or technical appraisals increasingly underpinning EU legal acts or to induce genuine reconsideration of contentious public interest choices by primary law, rule or decision makers themselves.

Consequently, the position of non-judicial-review in the EU system of justice, and how it supports judicial review, merit in-depth re-evaluation by the co-legislators. The co-legislators currently lack a coherent vision of EU non-judicial review, equipping particular review authorities with insufficient resources and an ambiguous legal framework.

Sala del Camino - Villa Salviati- Castle DD/MM/YYYY
  Sala del Camino - Villa Salviati- Castle

This thesis advances a relative justice approach to the judicial and non-judicial review of EU legal acts. It specifically compares the kind of justice, predominantly procedural in nature, delivered by the action for annulment before the EU Courts; appeal before the Board of Appeal of the European Chemical Agency and complaint to the European Ombudsman. By exploring the practical functioning of these mechanisms, the thesis seeks to determine whether nonjudicial review mechanisms can fill gaps in the EU system of justice caused by inherent shortcomings of EU judicial review. These shortcomings – the uncertain thoroughness and limited accessibility of judicial review – stem from a constant need to avoid overloading the EU Courts with complex cases and shifting on them too much responsibility for the substance of EU law, rule and decision-making.

The thesis argues that mechanisms for non-judicial review may deliver the kind of justice that is comparable to that normally demanded of judicial review, while avoiding the risk of judicial overload and overreach. This justice is relative to these mechanisms’ institutional and

procedural features – independence, expertise, jurisdiction, review technique, powers, accessibility and participation-oriented procedures. By dint of such features, non-judicial review mechanisms generate argumentative resources that can later be invoked to induce the rational acceptability of reviewed legal acts by the affected parties and citizenry. The structure of such mechanisms may moreover be more adequate to review scientific or technical appraisals increasingly underpinning EU legal acts or to induce genuine reconsideration of contentious public interest choices by primary law, rule or decision makers themselves.

Consequently, the position of non-judicial-review in the EU system of justice, and how it supports judicial review, merit in-depth re-evaluation by the co-legislators. The co-legislators currently lack a coherent vision of EU non-judicial review, equipping particular review authorities with insufficient resources and an ambiguous legal framework.


Location:
Sala del Camino - Villa Salviati- Castle

Affiliation:
Department of Law

Type:
Thesis defence

Contact:
Claudia de Concini (EUI - Law) - Send a mail

Defendant:
Michal Krajewski (EUI - Law)

Examiner:
Prof. Urska Sadl (EUI - Law Department)
Prof. Joana Mendes (Université du Luxembourg)
Prof. Paola Chirulli (Sapienza Università di Roma)

Supervisor:
Prof. Deirdre Curtin (EUI - Law Department)

Similar events

 

Page last updated on 18 August 2017