English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The restrictions imposed on the possibility for an individual to challenge European law measures and the restrictive interpretation of the notion of ‘individual concern’ given by the European Court of Justice have been highly criticised by legal scholars and members of the European judiciary as being against the principle of effective judicial protection. This paper shows how the restrictive interpretation of the notion of ‘individual concern’ developed in the case law of the European Court of Justice. Furthermore, the paper discusses possible improvements to the current system of judicial protection, such as the possibility to introduce a fundamental rights complaint procedure and the obligation of Member States to provide for effective judicial remedies before national courts. Finally, the impact of the modifications made by the Lisbon Treaty to the annulment procedure is assessed.</p

Private Parties and the Annulment Procedure: Can the Gap in the European System of Judicial Protection Be Closed?