This book investigates the concept of procedural autonomy of Member States in the light of EU law. Does procedural autonomy still adequately describe the powers of national lawmakers and courts to design their civil procedural systems or is it misleading? For the last few decades, Europe has been in a period of increasing Europeanisation of civil procedure. Increased powers of the EU have resulted in hard law, case law and soft law that regulate many types of domestic and cross-border civil cases. These rules have both direct and indirect implications for national procedural law.Gaining insights from selected European jurisdictions (Belgium, England and Wales, Finland, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden), this book explores the concept of procedural autonomy from different angles: Is procedural autonomy an adequate term? How is procedural autonomy understood nationally, and is there variation among the Member States? Do some types of EU law or specific characteristics of EU civil procedural law restrain procedural autonomy more than other? How can these differences be explained and is it possible to identify the sources causing such discrepancies?Procedural Autonomy across Europe is a stimulating discussion for lawyers with an interest in civil procedure.

This volume in the Swedish Studies in European Law series, produced by the Swedish Network for European Legal Studies, heralds the new harmonised regime of private enforcement of EU competition law. In 2013, the Commission issued a Communication and Practical Guide to the quantification of harm in antitrust litigation and a Recommendation on collective redress. In 2014, the long-awaited Directive on actions for damages for infringements of EU competition law was finally adopted. In 2016, the Commission is expected to issue guidelines on the passing-on of overcharges. This book examines these recent developments and offers the perspectives of judges, officials, practitioners and academics. With a preface by Judge Carl Wetter of the General Court, the book explores five different themes. In section one, the main policy issues and challenges are presented. In section two, the new regime is placed in the bigger picture of recent EU law developments. In section three, the nexus between private enforcement and transparency is investigated. A comparative perspective is offered in section four by looking into private enforcement in five Member State jurisdictions. Finally, issues relating to causation, harm and indirect purchasers are explored in section five.

This book provides precious insight into the dynamics of this new approach to consolidating European Civil Justice, clearly outlining the motivations of the various national and institutional players involved and examining potential obstacles likely to be encountered along the way. The book represents a work of reference for anyone involved in academia, practice or law reform in this subject area.

Given the impact that successive court rulings have had on the organisation of the sports movement in the past 15 years, the autonomy of non-governmental sports organisations has become a highly topical concern in Europe. It is also closely related to the issue of governance, the subject of previous Council of Europe studies. The Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport (EPAS) decided to explore the concept of autonomy in greater depth by studying the conceptual, political, legal, economic and psycho-sociological aspects of the subject. This study was carried out at the request of the EPAS by the Swiss Graduate School of Public Administration (IDHEAP) on the basis of a questionnaire sent to public authorities in charge of sport and to national and international umbrella sports organisations. In addition to an analysis of the data obtained, documents produced by public authorities and sports organisations on this emerging issue are presented. This study contributes to a better understanding of the concept of autonomy and offers a clear picture of the issues involved.

Whereas individual Member State governments of the European Union occasionally complain about judgments of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), especially when those judgments curtail that State's policy autonomy in a sensitive domain, the collectivity of the Member State governments have agreed in each treaty revision so far to confirm and extend the far-reaching powers which the ECJ possesses for enforcing EU law. The explanation of the paradox can only be that, deep down, the Member States of the EU remain convinced that an effective ECJ with strong enforcement powers is one of the salient features of EU law which have stood the test of time and feel no inclination to clip the wings of the ECJ for fear that this would affect the effectiveness of the European integration process. Nevertheless, the grumblings about single judgments, or about the consistency and direction of the ECJ in particular policy fields, have never ceased and indeed have become more audible in recent years. This book - now available in paperback - deals with the perception that the ECJ quite often does not leave sufficient autonomy to the Member States in developing their own legal and policy choices in areas where European and national competences overlap.

This book provides an analysis of key approaches to rule of law oversight in the EU and identifies deeper theoretical problems.

Is the procedural autonomy of EU Member State a myth or a reality? What should this concept be taken to mean? Starting from the analysis of requirements and principles regulating, generally speaking, the relationships between Member States’ and EU law, this book provides a definition of procedural autonomy able to account for the concept’s inherent limits. Out of an analysis of the more relevant EU jurisprudence, the author identifies the rationale underlying the interventions of the ECJ on issues of procedural autonomy and the common logic that emerges from it; and reveals how, in an unchanged context of ‘procedural autonomy’ of the Member States, national procedural law becomes more and more ‘functionalized’ to the requirements of effectiveness of substantive EU law. As such, we should speak of a ‘functionalized procedural competence’ rather than of procedural autonomy. But this is by no means a case of “Paradise Lost.” The book includes a foreword by Prof. Jürgen Schwarze, one of the founding fathers of European Administrative Law.