Abstract
The effective protection of those rights that the EU legal order confers on individuals has traditionally been ensured by a continuous dialogue between the supranational judiciary, the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and all national courts. Such a constitutional settlement, which worked reasonably well for several years, is now considered by some commentators under threat. The obligations imposed on national courts are perceived as too burdensome, and several recent judgments have been regarded as intruding excessively into national procedural autonomy. This article analyzes recent decisions such as Kempter, Impact, and Lucchini, SPA, and argues instead that these fears are unjustified mainly because both the ECJ and national courts are striving to achieve the same aims, namely, the effective application of a given legal system, the fair composition of litigation, the protection of the parties involved, and the promotion of the efficiency of the legal process.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
