The overarching purpose of this doctoral thesis is to determine if the system of legal mechanisms in European Community law governing what procedural rules national courts shall apply to Community rights can be reformed to better balance involved interests. European Community law is often applied and enforced by ordinary national courts that, as a general rule, supplement substantive Community rules with national procedural rules. While the Community rights that individuals can rely upon before national courts are the same in all Member States, the procedural rules that national courts apply to those Community rights can and often does differ between the Member States. While this order is often acceptable, Community law contains a number of exceptions from the general rule that it is the Member States that decide what procedural rules national courts shall apply to Community rights. Such exceptions are primarily motivated by the need to ensure the effectiveness of Community. In order to determine what interests should be taken into account when deciding what procedural rules national courts shall apply to Community rights and how a more balanced system could be constructed, the European legal system is herein compared to that of the United States. American State courts apply Federal law much like national European courts apply European Community law and, also similar to Community law, a system of legal mechanism governing what procedural rules State courts shall apply to Federal rights has developed. While U.S. law and European Community law are in this respect similar, the two are not identical. A comparison between the two reveals that the European approach improperly overlooks several interests that are central in the American approach. Most importantly, the European approach emphasizes and promotes the effectiveness of union law at the expense of upholding a proper division of power between union and states. American law also provides European Community law with practical advices regarding how a better balanced approach can be constructed and points to solutions that should be avoided.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:umu-1136 |
| Date | January 2007 |
| Creators | Lindholm, Johan |
| Publisher | Umeå universitet, Juridik, Iustus Förlag AB |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Doctoral thesis, monograph, info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0011 seconds