Harmonization without Harmony?

• Department of Law

PhD thesis defence by Hubert Bekisz

The thesis explores the implications of the shifting authority over procedure from the national to the EU level for safeguarding the right to an effective remedy in national courts. While EU procedural harmonization aims to remove disparities across jurisdictions, national procedural systems are largely ethnocentric, which raises questions about the alignment between EU and national approaches to the proceduralization of law. At the same time, little is known about the application and enforcement of EU law in non-referring national courts, i.e., outside the context of the preliminary ruling procedure. Drawing on a theoretically informed sampling and diverse case research design, the study investigates the implications of establishing common asylum procedures at the EU level, focusing on the right to an effective remedy in Poland and Ireland. The empirical analysis, based on 1,748 decisions of national courts responsible for asylum appeals, numerous decisions of peak national courts, internal documents on judicial practices, and expert interviews, suggests the emergence of structural and normative conflicts between procedural frameworks, disrupting the effectiveness of EU procedural harmonization on the ground. The findings reveal that judges are institutionally anchored in national rules of procedure within a context of structural conflicts, while normative conflicts between procedural objectives diminish adjudicatory coherence. Against this background, the thesis points to the need for a reconsideration of EU procedural harmonization in its current form. It is argued that unlocking its full potential requires a shift in focus toward institutional readjustments and more coherent adjudication at the national level.

The Zoom link will be sent upon registration.