Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author or Editor: Márton Varju x
  • All content x
Clear All Modify Search

The principle of fair administration of justice requires that formal restrictions on initiating procedures before courts correspond to the right to access to a court. Based on the rule of law-Community law shall ensure that its provisions on the administration of justice are in accord with the fundamental law requirements established in Community law. The provisions on intervention before Community courts contain certain restraints on access to a court that are worth scrutinising on a fundamental right basis. The aim of the paper is threefold. First, it wishes to recover the jurisprudence of Community courts interpreting the conditions of intervention. Second, it attempts to reveal the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg and Luxembourg courts on access to justice with respect to formal restrictions. Third, it essays to implement the access to court test on the restraints of access to justice in intervention.

Full access

The system of judicial review in the European Community has recently come under scrutiny on grounds of the right to effective judicial protection as provided in Article 6 ECHR and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The applicants in cases UPA and Jégo-Quéré claimed that in case their action was found inadmissible under Article 230 (4) EC, they would be deprived of effective judicial protection since other means of protection against violation of law by the Community do not provide adequate remedies. The Court of First Instance in Jégo-Quéré responded to the claims of the applicant by concluding that a new interpretation of the condition of individual concern laid down under Article 230 (4) EC could ensure the right to effective judicial protection in the system of judicial review in Community law. In spite of the fact that the Advocate General also envisaged that the amendment of the condition of individual concern may guarantee the protection of this right, the Court of Justice in UPA rejected such a solution, and stated that it is the duty of the Member States to provide effective judicial protection under Community law acting on national or Community level.

Full access