Dissertations / Theses on the topic 'Appellate procedure – European Union countries'

Defence date: 30 March 2007
Examining Board: Prof. Philip Alston (European University Institute) ; Prof. Francesco Francioni (European University Institute) ; Prof. Olivier de Schutter (University of Louvain) ; Prof. Kevin Boyle (University of Essex Colchester)
PDF of thesis uploaded from the Library digital archive of EUI PhD theses

El principio de publicidad de las actuaciones judiciales se encuentra consagrado como un derecho fundamental en el artículo 24.2 de nuestra Constitución. Este derecho no es de carácter absoluto y se encuentra sometido a ciertas limitaciones previstas legalmente. La publicidad del proceso penal implica que tengan conocimiento de las actuaciones, no solo los propios interesados, sino también extraños al proceso. Esta actividad de difusión de la noticia, garantía de funcionamiento del Poder Judicial en una sociedad democrática, se efectúa principalmente por los medios de comunicación. El problema se produce cuando se informa sobre un hecho noticiable que se encuentra sub iudice y los Mass Media, a través de un “juicio paralelo”, pretenden, de forma continua y sesgada, examinar y valorar el proceso judicial, las pruebas y las personas implicadas en los hechos y asumen así el papel de juez e inducen a éste a un veredicto anticipado de culpabilidad o inocencia ante la opinión pública. Esta actividad colisiona con posiciones subjetivas de los individuos, que también tienen la consideración de derechos fundamentales como son los derechos a: (i) un proceso justo; (ii) un juez imparcial; (iii) la presunción de inocencia y (iv) recibir y comunicar información. Con esta tesis doctoral se ha procedido a estudiar dicha problemática así como las respuestas que la legislación, la jurisprudencia y la doctrina dan, en nuestro Ordenamiento jurídico y en derecho comparado, para conciliar estos derechos fundamentales con los intereses mediáticos de le prensa, así como las garantías previstas legalmente en el ámbito penal, civil y contencioso- administrativo para la salvaguarda de los mismos. En la parte final del trabajo se apuntan posibles soluciones al problema de los “juicios paralelos” que puedan dar respuesta al interés general de la sociedad en su pretensión de obtener una justicia eficaz en la represión del delito a la vez que respetuosa con los derechos de todos los ciudadanos que se pueden ver involucrados en el proceso judicial.
El principi de publicitat de les actuacions judicials es troba consagrat com un dret fonamental en l’article 24.2 de la nostra Constitució. Aquest dret no és de caràcter absolut i està sotmès a determinades limitacions previstes legalment. La publicitat del procés penal implica que tinguin coneixement de les actuacions, no només els propis interessats, si no també estranys al procés. Aquesta activitat de difusió de la notícia, garantia del funcionament del Poder Judicial en una societat democràtica, és realitzada, principalment, pels mitjans de comunicació. El problema es produeix quan s’informa d’un fet que és notícia i que es troba sub iudice, i els mass media, mitjançant un “judici paral·lel”, pretenen de forma continuada i esbiaixada examinar i valorar el procés judicial, les proves i les persones implicades en els fets, assumint el paper de jutge, induint a un veredicte anticipat de culpabilitat o innocència a aquest en front de l’opinió pública. Aquesta activitat topa amb posicions subjectives dels individus que també tenen la consideració de drets fonamentals com són els drets a: (i) un procés just; (ii) un jutge imparcial; (iii) la presumpció d’innocència i (iv) rebre i comunicar informació. Amb la present tesis doctoral s’ha procedit a estudiar la referida problemàtica així com les respostes que la legislació, la jurisprudència i la doctrina donen en el nostre Ordenament Jurídic i en dret comparat, per tal de conciliar aquests drets fonamentals amb els interessos mediàtics de la premsa, així com les garanties previstes legalment en l’àmbit penal, civil i contenciós – administratiu per a la salvaguarda dels mateixos. En la part final del treball s’apunten possibles solucions al problema dels “judicis paral·lels” que poden donar resposta a l’interès general de la societat en la seva pretensió d’obtenir una justícia eficaç en la repressió del delicte a la vegada que respectuosa amb els drets de tots els ciutadans que es puguin veure involucrats en el procés judicial.
The principle of publicity of judicial actions is set forth as fundamental right in article 24 of the Spanish Constitution. Nevertheless, this is not an absolute right: it has some legal limitations. The publicity of the criminal procedure implies that not only those directly affected by the procedure know the state of acts but third people. Information disclosure, which serves as a warranty of the functioning of the judicial system, is done in a democratic society by the media. The problem arises when mass media start a parallel trial while reporting on case which is still sub iudice, assessing and judging with a biased viewpoint the procedure, its participants and the evidences submitted, assuming the judge’s role and, therefore, trying to induce him/her to an anticipate judgement before the public opinion. Such activity collides with the position of the defendant, who has his/her own fundamental rights such as the right to (i) a fair trial; (ii) an impartial judge; (iii) the presumption of innocence and (iv) receive and communicate certain information. In the present thesis, the problem of parallel trials and the collision of rights have been studied taking into account the solutions provided by Law, case law and scholars both of Spanish Legal System and comparative Law in order to reconcile such fundamental rights with media’s interest and also the legal guarantees for defendants in civil, criminal and administrative procedures. In the final part of this thesis, there are some possible solutions to the problem of parallel trials which try to give an answer to society’s general interest to find an efficient justice system in punishing crimes which also respects the rights of all citizens which may be part of the process.

Булатін, Д. О. Адміністративно-правові засади здійснення превентивної діяльності поліцією: порівняння досвіду України та країн ЄС : дис. ... д-ра філос.: 12.00.07, 081 / Дмитро Олексійович; МВС України, Харків. нац. ун-т внутр. справ. - Харків, 2020. - 247 с.
У дисертації міститься теоретичне узагальнення актуальної наукової проблеми, пов’язаної із визначенням адміністративно-правових засад здійснення превентивної діяльності поліцією через порівняння досвіду України та країн ЄС, а також шляхів їх удосконалення. В результаті проведеного дослідження сформульовано низку положень та висновків котрі спрямовані на досягнення поставленої мети.
The dissertation contains a theoretical generalization of the current scientific problem related to the definition of administrative and legal principles of preventive activities by the police through a comparison of the experience of Ukraine and the EU, as well as ways to improve them. As a result of the research, a number of provisions and conclusions have been formulated which are aimed at achieving the set goal.
В диссертации содержится теоретическое обобщение актуальной научной проблемы, связанной с определением административно-правовых основ осуществления превентивной деятельности полицией через сравнение опыта Украины и стран ЕС, а также путей их совершенствования. В результате проведенного исследования сформулирован ряд положений и выводов которые направлены на достижение поставленной цели.

Defence date: 9 May 1997
Supervisor: Francis Snyder
PDF of thesis uploaded from the Library digitised archive of EUI PhD theses completed between 2013 and 2017
Con l’istituzione del Tribunale di primo grado, resa possibile dall’Atto unico europeo e realizzata con la decisione 88/951 del Consiglio, è stato introdotto nel sistema comunitario il doppio grado di giurisdizione per le cause trasferite in primo grado alla competenza del Tribunale, A seguito della progressiva espansione delle competenze trasferite, il Tribunale è attualmente giudice di primo grado per tutti i ricorsi diretti proposti dalle persone fìsiche e giuridiche. Il Trattato di Maastricht ha esteso l'ambito delle competenze " potenziali" del Tribunale: l'art. 168A CE consente infatti il trasferimento dei ricorsi diretti proposti dagli Stati membri e dalle Istituzioni comunitarie. Resta riservata alla Corte di giustizia la competenza a conoscere delle questioni pregiudiziali sottoposte ai sensi dell’an. 177 del Trattato.

Defence date: 15 June 2012
First made available online on 29 July 2019
Examining Board: Professor Neil Walker, EUI / University of Edinburgh (Supervisor); Professor Marise Cremona, EUI; Professor Valsamis Mitsilegas, Queen Mary, University of London; Professor Kimmo Nuotio, University of Helsinki.
This thesis shall contribute to European Criminal Procedure, a rapidly evolving area of EU policy that has attracted much attention, but has also been subject to criticism. The research will first identify and analyse the main rationales of this area. Since the Tampere European Council of 1999, mutual recognition has become the most fundamental concept of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and has experienced a steep career, having been adopted by Art. 82 TFEU. When the principle of mutual recognition was introduced, it was based on an analogy to the free movement of goods. This analogy has often been regarded as flawed. Moreover, there has always been a notion of mutual recognition in judicial cooperation as well. The study will show how these two factors have influenced the development of the area, and how policy concepts, such as the principle of mutual trust, have had a greater influence on the development of the law than any legal doctrine. The lack of a coherent approach to the area of judicial cooperation and the unsystematic combination of different legal orders have caused unforeseen frictions for the individual. These will be illustrated by an analysis of the law of transnational evidence-gathering according to the European Evidence Warrant and the proposed European Investigation Order. It will be shown that most of the problems result from the lack of a uniform allocation of jurisdiction and from an overly confined understanding of fundamental rights in the context of judicial cooperation. By analysing the nature and purpose of jurisdictional rules in a national and a European context, the thesis aims at uncovering the theoretic foundations on which a uniform allocation of jurisdiction could be built. Finally, the thesis analyses the role of fundamental rights in judicial cooperation. It will uncover the ineptness of a nation-state oriented interpretation of fundamental rights to adequately address the problems of mutual recognition and argue for a European understanding of transnational judicial rights.

Defence date: 15 September 2017
Examining Board: Professor Giorgio Monti, EUI (supervisor); Professor Dennis Patterson, EUI; Professor Davíð Þór Björgvinsson, University of Iceland; Professor Ioannis Lianos, UCL
The question of procedural fairness in EU’s competition procedure has been discussed widely in the academic literature based on the traditional positivistic legal method; so far without a success in producing a consensus on where the practical limitations of the concept of procedural fairness ought to lie. This thesis sets out to approach the problem more fundamentally by propping beyond the concept of procedural fairness in the legal positivistic sense, and venture into the territory of moral and political philosophy for establishing a practical understanding of the more general concept of fairness in human relations. Once the concept of fairness has been properly revealed in practical terms, the thesis attempts to quantitatively translate this concept of fairness into the laws to facilitate the composition of a fair legal rule. To achieve this, a novel methodological model is constructed based on microeconomic tools. This model, the model of fair rules, is then used to assess two dilemmas of procedural fairness in the context of EU’s competition procedure that have been solved by the CJEU based on the traditional juridical method. The results of the assessment suggest that methodological improvements can be made in the design of competition procedures with regards to facilitating procedural fairness. Such improvements would also have implications for the legal interpretive methodologies used by the EU courts.

Defence date: 9 October 2006
Supervisor: Prof. Jacques Ziller
Awarded the Mauro Cappelletti Prize for the best comparative law doctoral thesis, 2007.
PDF of thesis uploaded from the Library digitised archive of EUI PhD theses completed between 2013 and 2017
This dissertation examines a burgeoning policy area of the EU - the regulation of cross border civil and commercial litigation. The dissertation analyses the EU's specific legislative measures regulating civil procedure and assesses their impact on litigation, particularly due process rights. The policy is then placed in the broader contexts of European integration and the international codification of civil procedure.

Defence date: 13 June 2018
Examining Board: Professor Deirdre Curtin, European University Institute (Supervisor) ; Professor Miguel Poiares Maduro, European University Institute ; Professor Paul Craig, St. John's College, Oxford ; Professor Herwig Hofmann, University of Luxembourg
The thesis examines how EU courts have addressed the rule of law challenges of composite procedures. Composite procedures are pervasive administrative processes which involve joint decision-making by national and EU authorities. Such procedures fit poorly into the EU’s traditional model of administrative law, EU executive federalism, which is designed for an administrative system where decisional power is exercised separately by the two levels of administration. This mismatch would make it difficult to observe several key requirements of the rule of law in EU administrative law – such as the right to be heard, the right to a reasoned decision, judicial protection, and the control of legality. The thesis argues that EU courts have crafted a series of unprecedented implicit principles that specifically aim at ensuring the observance of rule of law requirements in composite decision-making. In doing so, EU case law has departed from the old doctrine of EU executive federalism. This was however not an easy transition. Indeed, since the EU’s foundational period, EU executive federalism was considered to be a constitutional doctrine, i.e., to immediately flow from the Treaties. Given the almost complete lack of references to administrative issues in the Treaties, this reading was entirely question-begging. Its espousal in the case law is explained in the dissertation as the likely result of a shared federalist conception of the European Union and of the administrative order created under its aegis. The thesis further argues that, just as the doctrine of EU executive federalism, the judge-made law of composite procedures relies on a series of assumptions on the relations between national and EU administration. The principles of composite decision-making do not treat national and EU authorities as two strictly separate spheres of power. Rather, they handle the two levels as a single, integrated administration, where national authorities are treated as an extension of the Commission – as the EU administration’s ancillary bureaucracy.

Author was awarded the European Public Law Group's special distinction 2010 for her PhD thesis.
Defence date: 28 September 2009
Examining Board: Profs. Ulf Bernitz (External Co-Supervisor, University of Stockholm); Gráinne de Burca (Supervisor, former EUI and Fordham University); Bruno De Witte (EUI); Walter van Gerven (University of Leuven)
PDF of thesis uploaded from the Library digital archive of EUI PhD theses
Through the judge-made requirements developed in its case-law, the Court of Justice has laid down obligations on national courts to provide effective judicial protection for individuals that seek to enforce Community law claims. This thesis will study the Europeanisation of national remedies and procedures that comes about in this process. I will carry out the analysis in two stages. In the first stage, I will look from a European perspective at the principle of effective judicial protection, which I will view as a Trojan horse containing the judge-made requirements, and establish what is understood by effective judicial protection. I will seek to identify more precise obligations incumbent on national courts in relation to different remedies and procedural rules. Moreover, I will seek to establish the rationale of the Court's intervention into national procedural autonomy. In particular, I will consider if the rationale is a concern to protect individual rights or whether the language of 'rights' is rather used as a legitimizing pretext for enhancing the general effectiveness of Community law and for harmonising remedies and procedures. In a second stage, the thesis will empirically study the Europeanisation of remedies and procedures at the domestic level, by looking at the Swedish judiciary's reaction to those judge-made requirements. It is only by looking at what happens when the Trojan horse unfolds in the national legal system that one can understand its role and whether the principle, in practice, achieves the intended rationales, or whether its complexity in fact hampers effective judicial protection. It will emerge that, in the Swedish context, there is a gap between European theory and national practice. In this respect, the study will highlight the role of the national legal and judicial culture in ensuring the effectiveness of Community law. Conclusions will be drawn from the empirical study on whether the Trojan horse really does serve as a functional and effective tool to achieve Europeanisation of remedies and procedures and the Court's intended rationales. I will call for clarifications, coherence and better 'judicial governance' of this complicated area of law.

Defence date: 9 March 2009
Examining Board: Prof. Gráinne De Búrca, EUI- Fordham Law School- Harvard Law School (Supervisor); Prof. Marise Cremona, EUI (Internal Advisor); Prof. Takis Tridimas, Financial Law Unit, Queen Mary, University of London; Prof. Niamh Moloney, London School of Economics and Political Science- Financial Markets Group, University of London
PDF of thesis uploaded from the Library digital archive of EUI PhD theses
Financial markets help allocate capital efficiently across the economy, thereby boosting economic growth- hence the salience of the creation of a single market in financial services within the EU single market project. Nevertheless, despite the EU's financial regulatory programme, it appears that a fully-fledged single European financial market is yet to be achieved. According to some, the substantive context of EU financial regulation is partially to account for this failure. More recently, though, both in policy and academic circles, the focus has been shifting towards the governance of EU financial law. Within this context, this thesis analyses the institutional arrangements for EU financial market regulation and supervision - crystallized in the so-called Lamfalussy framework- and explores the potential and problems of the prospect of institutional consolidation (in the form of one or more EU financial authorities) as an alternative to that framework. The debate, which seemed to have subsided in recent years, is now again coming to the fore, in light of the ongoing international financial crisis. This evidences the close relationship between substance and governance: the quality of rules ultimately depends both on the input that produced them, as well as -if not more- on the quality of the implementation, application and enforcement of the rules. This discussion on the future of EU financial governance is undertaken in two parts. The thesis examines firstly the interaction of 'classical' financial law aims (achieving efficient and stable financial markets) with 'integrationist' aims (the commitment to create a single European financial market, as a response to growing international competition). The thesis then situates the institutional question within the broader context of the EU public law framework in a more deliberate and systematic way than has hitherto been done in the existing scholarly literature. The result is an argument in favour of institutional consolidation in the EU financial sector, with an emphasis on supervision. The case of the US SEC, whose success is arguably based on its enforcement function, is used to illustrate that institutional consolidation is not synonymous with 'one size fits all' solutions, but that flexibility can be incorporated in an authority's regulatory tools. To be sure, further discussion is necessary in order to achieve this balance; but the thesis argues that we do better to focus on the details of the 'how' best to design such institutions, rather than on omphaloskeptical questions of 'whether' they are needed. Indeed, at a closer look, arguments against this approach rarely dispute the need itself for some institutional consolidation, but rather point to the difficulties in its design.

Defence date: 21 June 2017
Examining Board: Prof. Hans-W. Micklitz, EUI (Supervisor) Prof. Marise Cremona, EUI Prof. Laurence Gormley, University of Groningen Prof. Fernanda Nicola, Washington College of Law, American University
The aim of this thesis is to illustrate, on the basis of a socio-legal study presented in three qualitative case studies, the role of hybrid collective remedies in enforcing European socially oriented regulation, in particular environmental law, anti-discrimination law and consumer law, for the creation of a European social legal order, which is able to gradually counter its perceived internal market bias. The hybrid collective remedies at stake in the three case studies – each case study constituted by a preliminary reference to the CJEU – are symptomatic of the three legal-political fields at stake. With the EU taking a leading role in the three fields for the purpose of complementing the creation of an internal market, the EU has decoupled the fields from their national social welfare origin and re-established a policy which is not so much based on ensuring social justice, but more based on procedural mechanisms to ensure access justice. Likewise, the EU left the creation of collective remedies fostering a genuine protective purpose to the Member States. The national and European models of justice underlying the three legal-political fields and their remedies are of a complementary, i.e., of a hybrid nature, and are moving towards the creation of an integrated European social order. The creation of the European social order via national actors using the preliminary reference procedure to implement the three policies at stake goes hand in hand with the creation of a European society.

Defence date: 21 December 2000
Examining board: Prof. Joël Rideau, Directeur de thèse/extérieur, Université de Nice-Sophia-Antipolis, Membre de l'Institut Universitaire de France ; Prof. Renaud Dehousse, Directeur de thèse IUE, Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris ; Prof. Mario Chiti, Université de Florence ; Prof. Fabrice Picod, Université Panthéon-Assas de Florence ; Prof. Jacques Ziller, Institut Universitaire Européen de Florence

Defence date: 27 May 1992
Examining board: Prof. Marie-Chantal Boutard-Labarde (Université de Paris X-Nanterre) ; Prof. Fausto Capelli (Université de Parme) ; Prof. Peter Müller-Graff (Université de Trier) ; Prof. Jürgen Schwarze (Supervisor - EUI) ; Prof. Jean Vergès (Université de Paris I)
PDF of thesis uploaded from the Library digitised archive of EUI PhD theses completed between 2013 and 2017