首页> 外文OA文献 >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
【2h】

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

机译:欧共体劳动法的司法实施。时间限制,证明责任,欧共体法律的官方适用。 Wp C.s.D.L.E. “massimo D'antona”N. 3/2002

摘要

[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.
机译:[摘自引言]。很难否认,迄今为止,欧共体立法的执行是通过私人执法模式进行的,而不是欧共体条约最初规定的公共执法模式。在社会法领域尤其如此,在欧洲法中,相对于根据第226条侵权程序采取行动的欧洲法院,向欧洲法院提供了更多保障,以确保欧洲公民享有源自共同体法律的实质性权利,而欧洲法院是根据第234条初步提起诉讼的。这不应仅仅看作是基于侵权程序的集中式公共模型的内部弱点的结果。多年来,私人执法模式假定的绝对流行率应被理解为共同体法律秩序的“双重支柱”的必然结果。至上主义和主要是直接作用主义的逐步巩固改变了公共法和私人法之间共同体法律司法执行的平衡,从而将平衡转移到了后者。的确,如果法院没有“发现”至高无上的直接作用,那么欧共体法律的执行将完全取决于各个成员国渴望履行其职责的意愿,或者是意愿(或可能性)。 )激活第226条程序。无论哪种情况,个人“欧洲诉讼作为欧洲劳工法的执行策略”肯定不会发挥其自70年代以来的实际作用。在这个广泛的框架内,(国家)救济和程序已成为(欧洲)实体权利效力的根本补充。要求在欧洲国家法院执行欧共体权利的个人移民的关键作用解释了欧洲法院判例法中司法补救措施的强调。实际上,一旦私人执法模式的优势得到承认,欧洲法院就不可避免地会在考虑有效执行共同体法律时考虑到国家制裁和适用的程序规则。

著录项

  • 作者

    Lo Faro Antonio;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2002
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 {"code":"en","name":"English","id":9}
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号