Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKombos, Constantinosen
dc.creatorKombos, Constantinosen
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-13T08:28:43Z
dc.date.available2019-05-13T08:28:43Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.identifier.issn1351-5993
dc.identifier.urihttp://gnosis.library.ucy.ac.cy/handle/7/49400
dc.description.abstractThe European Court of Justice has persisted in adopting an unduly restrictive interpretation of Article 230(4) EC and that persistence has reached its apogee in the UPA decision, while at the same time it was mirrored in the relevant provisions of the draft Constitution. Therefore, it is surprising to see that in the aftermath of UPA, there can be something positive that can be explored further and that can be tested in order to establish whether any indirect, alas limited, liberalisation of the standing criteria is possible. The Ten Kate case established that, in principle, a Member State could be under an obligation under domestic law to challenge the validity of Community legislation. If the state, in all of its different manifestations, fails to challenge the validity of a Community measure when such an obligation arises under municipal law, then the citizen could be in a position to claim compensation. Therefore, the case introduces the doctrine of state liability and the agency analogy (with the state representing the individual or as parens patriae) as connected paths trying to circumvent the standing restrictions. The advantage is that the proceedings would take place under national law and would be detached from the Plaumann conditions. It is proposed that constitutionally entrenched human rights, like effective judicial protection, combined with the principle of legitimate expectation, could create the legal basis for an obligation of the state under national law to challenge the validity of Community norms. The paradox is that effective judicial protection was the exact argument that the European Court of Justice sidelined in UPA. ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]en
dc.description.abstractCopyright of European Law Journal is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)en
dc.sourceEuropean Law Journalen
dc.subjectEUROPEen
dc.subjectACTIONS & defenses (Administrative law)en
dc.subjectCONSTITUTIONSen
dc.subjectCOURT of Justice of the European Communitiesen
dc.subjectEUROPEAN Communityen
dc.subjectGOVERNMENT liabilityen
dc.subjectJUSTICE administrationen
dc.titleA Paradox in the Making: Detecting Something Positive in UPA Under the Ten Kate Effecten
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1468-0386.2009.00475.x
dc.description.volume15
dc.description.startingpage506
dc.description.endingpage535
dc.author.facultyΣχολή Κοινωνικών Επιστημών και Επιστημών Αγωγής / Faculty of Social Sciences and Education
dc.author.departmentΤμήμα Νομικής / Department of Law
dc.type.uhtypeArticleen
dc.description.totalnumpages506-535


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record