Link to the University of Pittsburgh
Link to the University Library SystemContact us link
AEI Banner

Judicial Enforcement of EC Labour Law. Time limits, Burden of Proof, ex Officio Application of EC Law. WP C.S.D.L.E. "Massimo D'Antona" N. 3/2002

Lo Faro, Antonio (2002) Judicial Enforcement of EC Labour Law. Time limits, Burden of Proof, ex Officio Application of EC Law. WP C.S.D.L.E. "Massimo D'Antona" N. 3/2002. [Working Paper]

[img]
Preview
PDF
Download (412Kb) | Preview

    Abstract

    [From the Introduction]. It would be hard to deny that the enforcement of Community legislation has up to now proceeded by means of a private enforcement model, as opposed to the public one initially provided for by the EC Treaty. This has been particularly true in the field of social law, where European citizens have been ensured of substantive rights deriving from Community law more by national courts acting on Article 234 preliminary references than by the European Court of Justice acting on Article 226 infringement procedures. This is not to be seen merely as a rsult of the inner weaknesses of the centralised public model based on infringement procedures. The absolute prevalence assumed over the years by the private enforcement model is rather to be understood as a corollary of the "twin pillars" of the Community legal order. The progressive consolidation of the doctrines of supremacy and - mostly - direct effect have altered the equilibrium between the pubic and the private route to the judicial enforcement of Community law, shifting the balance towards the latter. And indeed, had the Court of Justice not "discovered" supremacy and direct effect, the enforcement of EC law would have been entirely left either to the eagerness of the individual Member states to comply with their duties, or to the willingness (or the possibility) of the Commission to activate Article 226 proceedings. In either case, individual "Eurolitigation as an enforcement strategy for European labour law" would certainly not have played the role it has actually been playing since the seventies. It is within this broad framework that (national) remedies and procedures have become a fundamental complement for the effectiveness of (European) substantive rights. The pivotal role of individual ligigants claiming enforcement of EC rights before a national court explains the emphasis gained by judicial remedies within the case law of the European Court of Justice. And in fact, once the preponderance of the private enforcement model was acknowledged, it was unavoidable for the European Court to take into account the national sanctions and rules of procedure to be applied when disputing the effective enforcement of Community law.

    Export/Citation:EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII (Chicago style) | HTML Citation | OpenURL
    Social Networking:
    Item Type: Working Paper
    Subjects for non-EU documents: EU policies and themes > Policies & related activities > law & legal affairs-general (includes international law)
    EU policies and themes > EU institutions & developments > institutional development/policy > historical development of EC (pre-1986)
    EU policies and themes > Policies & related activities > employment/labour market > labour/labor
    EU policies and themes > EU institutions & developments > European Court of Justice/Court of First Instance
    Subjects for EU documents: UNSPECIFIED
    EU Series: UNSPECIFIED
    ["eprint_fieldname_eusries" not defined]: UNSPECIFIED
    EU Annual Reports: UNSPECIFIED
    Series: Series > University of Catania > Department of Law, C.S.D.L.E. "Massimo D'Antona" Working Papers .INT
    Depositing User: Phil Wilkin
    Official EU Document: No
    Language: English
    Date Deposited: 14 Jul 2003
    Page Range: p. 45
    Last Modified: 15 Feb 2011 17:15
    URI: http://aei.pitt.edu/id/eprint/612

    Actions (login required)

    View Item

    Document Downloads