Collective Redress: Broadening EU Enforcement Through State Liability?

James Marson, Katy Ferris

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This article advances an argument that private enforcement of European Union (EU) rights has largely been stunted due to a series of blocking tactics by Member States, enabled through a form of tacitic subservience of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Currently, State Liability is neither an effective system of redress under tortious liability, nor a genuine enforcement mechanism in domestic law. By enabling collective redress in State Liability, we present an argument, missing explicitly in current literature, that both as a viable remedy through the (UK’s modified) tort of breach of statutory duty, and through granting effective redress through action by the EU Commission, State Liability will become the mechanism for corrective justice the Court of Justice envisaged in 1991. In 2011, the EU Commission issued a nonbinding Recommendation establishing collective redress for breach of competition law. Could this be seen as positive positioning by the EU to seize the initiative for greater access to individuals of justice and justiciable solutions?
LanguageEnglish
Pages325-351
Number of pages27
JournalEuropean Business Law Review
Volume27
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2016

Fingerprint

liability
court of justice
justice
Law
tactics
remedies

Cite this

Marson, James ; Ferris, Katy. / Collective Redress : Broadening EU Enforcement Through State Liability?. In: European Business Law Review. 2016 ; Vol. 27, No. 3. pp. 325-351.
@article{68e3bd3a2131460e94b5b84e46c1538b,
title = "Collective Redress: Broadening EU Enforcement Through State Liability?",
abstract = "This article advances an argument that private enforcement of European Union (EU) rights has largely been stunted due to a series of blocking tactics by Member States, enabled through a form of tacitic subservience of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Currently, State Liability is neither an effective system of redress under tortious liability, nor a genuine enforcement mechanism in domestic law. By enabling collective redress in State Liability, we present an argument, missing explicitly in current literature, that both as a viable remedy through the (UK’s modified) tort of breach of statutory duty, and through granting effective redress through action by the EU Commission, State Liability will become the mechanism for corrective justice the Court of Justice envisaged in 1991. In 2011, the EU Commission issued a nonbinding Recommendation establishing collective redress for breach of competition law. Could this be seen as positive positioning by the EU to seize the initiative for greater access to individuals of justice and justiciable solutions?",
keywords = "European Union Law, Justice",
author = "James Marson and Katy Ferris",
note = "No accepted date but AAM deposited in ePrints 23 March 2016, so OA compliant according to HEFCE's extension of 3 month rule.",
year = "2016",
month = "7",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "325--351",
journal = "European Business Law Review",
issn = "0959-6941",
publisher = "Kluwer Law International",
number = "3",

}

Collective Redress : Broadening EU Enforcement Through State Liability? / Marson, James; Ferris, Katy.

In: European Business Law Review, Vol. 27, No. 3, 07.2016, p. 325-351.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Collective Redress

T2 - European Business Law Review

AU - Marson, James

AU - Ferris, Katy

N1 - No accepted date but AAM deposited in ePrints 23 March 2016, so OA compliant according to HEFCE's extension of 3 month rule.

PY - 2016/7

Y1 - 2016/7

N2 - This article advances an argument that private enforcement of European Union (EU) rights has largely been stunted due to a series of blocking tactics by Member States, enabled through a form of tacitic subservience of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Currently, State Liability is neither an effective system of redress under tortious liability, nor a genuine enforcement mechanism in domestic law. By enabling collective redress in State Liability, we present an argument, missing explicitly in current literature, that both as a viable remedy through the (UK’s modified) tort of breach of statutory duty, and through granting effective redress through action by the EU Commission, State Liability will become the mechanism for corrective justice the Court of Justice envisaged in 1991. In 2011, the EU Commission issued a nonbinding Recommendation establishing collective redress for breach of competition law. Could this be seen as positive positioning by the EU to seize the initiative for greater access to individuals of justice and justiciable solutions?

AB - This article advances an argument that private enforcement of European Union (EU) rights has largely been stunted due to a series of blocking tactics by Member States, enabled through a form of tacitic subservience of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Currently, State Liability is neither an effective system of redress under tortious liability, nor a genuine enforcement mechanism in domestic law. By enabling collective redress in State Liability, we present an argument, missing explicitly in current literature, that both as a viable remedy through the (UK’s modified) tort of breach of statutory duty, and through granting effective redress through action by the EU Commission, State Liability will become the mechanism for corrective justice the Court of Justice envisaged in 1991. In 2011, the EU Commission issued a nonbinding Recommendation establishing collective redress for breach of competition law. Could this be seen as positive positioning by the EU to seize the initiative for greater access to individuals of justice and justiciable solutions?

KW - European Union Law

KW - Justice

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 325

EP - 351

JO - European Business Law Review

JF - European Business Law Review

SN - 0959-6941

IS - 3

ER -