Abstract
AbstractAccess to justice in the EU is to be assured via both the CJEU and national courts through direct and indirect action procedures. Following this, the main argument developed throughout this analysis is that the CJEU differentiates the revision standard when interpreting the obligations of EU institutions and those of Member States. It is concluded that this kind of interpretation maintains the limitations to access to justice for individuals in the EU (the ‘incurable’), even when faced with the attempt to overcome this restrictive interpretation in the specific case of strategic climate litigation (‘curing the incurable’). The specific case of strategic climate litigation is used as an example to illustrate the negative consequences of limitations to access to justice for individuals in the EU. In conclusion, it is assessed whether there are any other ‘real cures’ for this deadlocked situation and what the rationale is behind these double standards.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
