|
Publishers Abstract:
In the initial phase of its case law, the Court laid down the basic principle of national procedural autonomy. During the initial phase of the case law, the Court repeatedly called on the Community legislature to take action to harmonize national procedural rules in this area. Apparently frustrated by the legislature's failure to respond to its pleas, the Court began in the 1980s to adopt a more interventionist stance, exemplified most clearly by Emmott, Factortame and Francovich. The marginalization of the Emmott doctrine was symptomatic of a reassessment by the Court of the importance of national procedural autonomy and heralded the start of a new, more restrained, phase in its case law. Its decision in Unibet is consistent with the trend. The explicit recognition in Unibet that Community law may sometimes require the creation of new remedies in the national courts therefore removes an unnecessary source of uncertainty and emphasizes that the overriding consideration is the effective protection of Community law rights.
|
