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.

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.

The European Union is traditionally seen as a new and partly separate legal order within the global legal system. At the same time, the EU is an important player in the global governance network. The strong and explicit link between the EU and a large number of other international organisations raises questions concerning the impact of decisions taken by those organisations and of international agreements concluded with those organisations (either by the EU itself or by its Member States) on the autonomy of the EU legal order. This book addresses the relationship between the EU and other international organisations by looking at the increasing influence of norms enacted by international organisations on the shaping of EU law.

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 investigates the Court of Justice's practice of deferring to Member State authorities in free movement law, examining the decision-making latitude accorded to national institutions by means of two deference doctrines, the margin of appreciation and decentralised judicial review.

This edited collection appraises the role, self-perception, reasoning and impact of the European Court of Justice on the development of European Union (EU) external relations law. Against the background of the recent recasting of the EU Treaties by the Treaty of Lisbon and at a time when questions arise over the character of the Court's judicial reasoning and the effect of international legal obligations in its case law, it discusses the contribution of the Court to the formation of the EU as an international actor and the development of EU external relations law, and the constitutional challenges the Court faces in this context. To what extent does the position of the Court contribute to a specific conception of the EU? How does the EU's constitutional order, as interpreted by the Court, shape its external relations? The Court still has only limited jurisdiction over the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy: why has this decision been taken, and what are its implications? And what is the Court's own view of the relationship between court(s) and foreign policy, and of its own relationship with other international courts? The contributions to this volume show that the Court's influence over EU external relations derives first from its ability to shape and define the external competence of the EU and resulting constraints on the Member States, and second from its insistence on the autonomy of the EU legal order and its role as 'gatekeeper' to the entry and effect of international law into the EU system. It has not - in the external domain - overtly exerted influence through shaping substantive policy, as it has, for example, in relation to the internal market. Nevertheless the rather 'legalised' nature of EU external relations and the significance of the EU's international legal commitments mean that the role of the Court of Justice is more central than that of a national court with respect to the foreign policy of a nation state. And of course its decisions can nonetheless be highly political.

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.