Source: http://infoportal.fra.europa.eu/InfoPortal/caselawFrontEndAccess.do?idhight=320&description=Article%2013%20%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%80%9C%20Right%20to%20an%20effective%20remedy%20&idDato=247&valueTable=Article%2013%20%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%80%9C%20Right%20to%20an%20effective%20remedy%20&udf=1
Timestamp: 2013-12-08 16:39:03
Document Index: 506200577

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 01', 'Art. 02', 'Art. 03', 'Art. 04', 'Art. 06', 'Art. 07', 'Art. 08', 'Art. 09', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 12', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 17', 'Art. 18', 'Art. 19', 'Art. 20', 'Art. 22', 'Art. 23', 'Art. 24', 'Art. 26', 'Art. 27', 'Art. 28', 'Art. 30', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 33', 'Art. 34', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 37', 'Art. 39', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 42', 'Art. 45', 'Art. 47', 'Art. 48', 'Art. 49', 'Art. 50', 'Art. 51', 'Art. 52', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'Application no. 66529', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'art 1', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ']

FAQ | Contact | Legal Notice | Site map | Latest updates | Fundamental Rights Agency > Research and analysis > Case Law
Art. 01 - Human dignity
Art. 02 - Right to life
Art. 03 - Human integrity
Art. 04 - Torture
Art. 06 - Liberty and security
Art. 07 - Private and family life
Art. 08 - Personal data
Art. 09 - Marriage / family foundation
Art. 10 - Thought, conscience and religion
Art. 11 - Expression and information
Art. 12 - Assembly and association
Art. 14 - Right to education
Art. 15 - Right to work
Art. 16 - Conduct a business
Art. 17 - Right to property Art. 18 - Right to asylum
Art. 19 - Removal, expulsion, extradition
Art. 20 - Equality before the law
Art. 22 - Diversity / Integration
Art. 23 - Gender equality
Art. 24 - Rights of the child
Art. 26 - Disability
Art. 27 - Workers' information / consultation
Art. 28 - Collective bargaining and action
Art. 30 - Unjustified dismissal
Art. 31 - Working conditions
Art. 33 - Family and professional life
Art. 34 - Social security
Art. 35 - Health care
Art. 37 - Environmental protection
Art. 39 - EP elections
Art. 41 - Good administration
Art. 42 - Access to documents
Art. 45 - Freedom of movement
Art. 47 - Effective remedy and fair trial
Art. 48 - Innocence / right to defence
Art. 49 - Legal principles
Art. 50 - Trial / punishment
Art. 51 - Scope
Art. 52 - Guaranteed rights
Article 02 – Right to life
Article 03 – Prohibition of torture Article 05 – Right to liberty and security Article 06 – Right to a fair trial Article 07 – No punishment without law Article 08 - Respect for private and family life
Article 10 – Freedom of expression Article 11 – Freedom of assembly, association
Article 12 – Right to marry Article 13 – Right to an effective remedy Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination Article 26 – Single-judge formation, committees, Chambers and Grand Chamber
Article 52 – Inquiries by the Secretary General Article 53 – Safeguard for existing human rights Article 13 â€“ Right to an effective remedy by deciding body
National court / tribunal
by type of case
About Case Law	Case Law
Case Law - Search Result for
Article 13 Ã¢â¬â Right to an effective remedy .
2 Page(s) 1 / 2 CJEU - C-168/13 PPU / Judgment - Jeremy F
Abstract Key facts of the case:Coopération policière et judiciaire en matière pénale – Décision-cadre 2002/584/JAI – Articles 27, paragraphe 4, et 28, paragraphe 3, sous c) – Mandat d’arrêt européen et procédures de remise entre États membres – Règle de la ...
CJEU - T‑383/11 / Judgment - Makhlouf v Council
Abstract Key facts of the case:APPLICATION for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2011/302/CFSP of 23 May 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 91), of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive ...
ECtHR / Application no. 66529/11 / Judgment - N.K.M. v. HUNGAR
Abstract Key facts of the case:THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE5. The applicant was born in 19... and lives in Budapest.6. The applicant, civil servant for thirty years, had been in the service of a government ministry. On 27 May ...
CJEU - T 492/10 / Judgment - Melli Bank v Council Decision date
Abstract Key facts of the case:APPLICATION for annulment of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision ...
CJEU - T-495/10 / Judgment - Bank Saderat plc v. Council of the European Union
Abstract Key facts of the case:APPLICATION for annulment of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July ...
CJEU - C-334/12 / Judgment - RX-II Réexamen Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB
Abstract Key facts of the case:REVIEW, under the second subparagraph of Article 256(2) of the TFEU, of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 June 2012 in Case T‑234/11 P Arango Jaramillo and Others v European ...
CJEU - C-617/10 / Judgment - Åkerberg Fransson
Abstract Key facts of the case:REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Haparanda tingsrätt (Sweden), made by decision of 23 December 2010, received at the Court on 27 December 2010, in the proceedingsÅklagaren v Hans Åkerberg Fransson,Results ...
CJEU - T-494/10 / Judgment - Bank Saderat Iran v Council
CJEU - C-496/10 / Judgment - Bank Mellat v. Council of European Union
Abstract Key facts of the case:"APPLICATION for annulment of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July ...
CJEU - C-334/12 / Opinion of Advocate General - RX-II Réexamen Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB
Abstract Key facts of the case:Review of judgment in Case T-234/11 P – Admissibility of an action for annulment – Reasonable period – Interpretation – Obligation of the court to take account of the circumstances of the case – Time-limit for ...
CJEU - C 300/11 / Opinion of Advocate General - ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Abstract Key facts of the case:"1. The present reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC. (2)2. This reference was made in a dispute between ZZ and the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘the Secretary of State’) concerning the Secretary of State’s decision to exclude ZZ from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on grounds of public security and to take an expulsion measure against him.3. By inviting the Court to decide to what extent a Member State may, invoking requirements relating to State security, refuse to disclose to a Union citizen the grounds of public security justifying an expulsion measure taken against him by that State, the present case raises the awkward problem of striking the right balance between the need for a Member State to protect the essential interests of its security and the guarantee of the procedural rights enjoyed by Union citizens."Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:"Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 346(1)(a) TFEU, must be interpreted as permitting a Member State, in exceptional cases duly justified by the need to guarantee State security and subject to review by the national court, to prevent a Union citizen from being informed of the grounds of public security for a decision to expel him, whether in detail or in summary form, where the national procedural law includes techniques with which to accommodate, on the one hand, legitimate security concerns about the nature and sources of intelligence information taken into account in the adoption of the decision concerned and, on the other hand, the need to allow the individual to benefit sufficiently from procedural rules.It is for the national court, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, to use all the procedural tools available to it to adapt the level of disclosure of the grounds of public security to the requirements relating to State security."EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article: 47 [paras: 81-115] ...
CJEU - C‑175/11 / Opinion of Advocate General - HID and BA
Abstract Key facts of the case:1. In the present case, the Court is requested by the High Court (Ireland) to interpret two provisions of Directive 2005/85/EC, (2) which establishes a minimum framework for the procedure for granting and withdrawing refugee status. The first of those provisions, Article 23(3) and (4), enables Member States to examine an application for asylum by the prioritised or accelerated procedure. The second, Article 39, requires that Member States ensure that applicants for asylum have the right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal against, in particular, the decision taken on their application for asylum.2. The applicants in the main proceedings, who are Nigerian nationals, maintain that those two provisions preclude the system for granting and withdrawing refugee status put in place in Ireland, in so far as the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform may decide that certain categories of applications for asylum, defined on the basis of the nationality of the applicant, must be subject to a prioritised or accelerated procedure. They further contend that the possibility of lodging an appeal before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (Ireland) does not ensure that they have the right to an effective remedy.3. It is therefore on those two points that the Court is requested by the referring court to give a ruling.4. In this Opinion I shall set out the reasons why I consider that Article 23(3) and (4) of Directive 2005/85 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a Member State from subjecting certain applications for asylum defined on the basis of the nationality or country of origin of the applicant to an accelerated or prioritised procedure.5. I shall then explain why, in my view, Article 39 of that directive and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which an appeal against the decision of the determining authority may be brought before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and before the High Court."Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:"(1) Article 23(3) and (4) of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a Member State from subjecting to an accelerated or prioritised procedure the examination of certain categories of applications for asylum defined on the basis of the nationality or country of origin of the applicant.(2) Article 39 of Directive 2005/85 and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which an appeal against the decision of the determining authority lies to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and to the High Court."EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article: 47 [Paras 78-95 in particular] ...
CJEU - C‑405/10 / Judgment - Özlem Garenfeld
Abstract Key facts of the case:"This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1), read in conjunction with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 of 29 November 2007 concerning the export for recovery of certain waste listed in Annex III or IIIA to Regulation No 1013/2006 to certain countries to which the OECD Decision on the control of transboundary movements of wastes does not apply (OJ 2007 L 316, p. 6), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 740/2008 of 29 July 2008 (OJ 2008 L 201, p.36) (‘Regulation No 1418/2007’). 2 The reference has been made in criminal proceedings brought against Ms Garenfeld for shipping spent automotive catalytic converters (or ‘spent catalysts’) from Germany to the Netherlands, with a view to exporting them to Lebanon."Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:"Articles 36(1)(f) and 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, read in conjunction with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 of 29 November 2007 concerning the export for recovery of certain waste listed in Annex III or IIIA to Regulation No 1013/2006 to certain countries to which the OECD Decision on the control of transboundary movements of wastes does not apply, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 740/2008 of 29 July 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the export from the European Union to Lebanon of waste, intended for recovery, which falls within category B1120 in List B in Part 1 of Annex V to Regulation No 1013/2006 is prohibited."EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article: 49 (1) ...
EGC - T-461/08 / Judgment - Evropaïki Dynamiki - Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Investment Bank (BEI)
Abstract Key facts of the case:"APPLICATION, first, for annulment of the EIB’s decision of 31 January 2008 not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant in connection with an open call for tenders for the provision of services in the form of assistance in the maintenance, support and development of an information technology system and to award the contract to another tenderer, on the basis of Articles 225 EC and 230 EC, and, second, for damages, on the basis of Articles 225 EC, 235 EC and 288 EC"Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:The Court "Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) not to accept the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in the context of call for tenders 2007/S 176-215155 for the provision of services in the form of ‘assistance in the maintenance, support and development of the Loans Front Office system (Serapis)’ and to award the contract to Sybase BVBA (...)"EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article: 47 ...
CJEU - C-108/10 / Judgment - Ivana Scattolon v Ministero dell’ Istruzione, dell’Università et della ricerca
Abstract Key facts of the case:After about twenty years of service as a cleaner in State schools, but employed by a municipality, the applicant of the main proceedings was transferred to the State as the mew employer; due to the fact that the applicant was placed on a salary scale corresponding only to nine years of service she suffered a significant loss of income and brought action. The court referred first to the Iatalian constitutional court (which did not finf an infringement of principles of legal certainty or effective judicial protection) and then to ECJ.Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:1. The takeover by a public authority of a Member State of staff employed by another public authority and entrusted with the supply to schools of auxiliary services including, in particular, tasks of maintenance and administrative assistance constitutes a transfer of an undertaking falling within Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses, where that staff consists in a structured group of employees who are protected as workers by virtue of the domestic law of that Member State. 2. Where a transfer within the meaning of Directive 77/187 leads to the immediate application to the transferred workers of the collective agreement in force with the transferee, and where the conditions for remuneration are linked in particular to length of service, Article 3 of that directive precludes the transferred workers from suffering, in comparison with their situation immediately before the transfer, a substantial loss of salary by reason of the fact that their length of service with the transferor, equivalent to that completed by workers in the service of the transferee, is not taken into account when determining their starting salary position with the latter. It is for the national court to examine whether, at the time of the transfer at issue in the main proceedings, there was such a loss of salary.EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article: 47 ...
CJEU - C-69/10 / Judgment - Brahim Samba Diouf v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration
Abstract Key facts of the case:The application of a Mauritanian national for international protection was, in first instance, rejected as unfounded, under an accelerated procedure, and the applicant ordered to leave Luxemburg. In the action brought against this decision before the referring tribunal, the applicant not only challenged the rejection and the order, but also the decision to apply an accelerated procedure. The tribunal, on the basis of its interpretation of the national law that this decision was not open for judicial review, decided to refer to ECJ. The tribunal pointed out that the main differences between ordinary and accelerated procedure werea) a reduced time limit for the legal remedy (15 days instead of one month)b) only one level of jurisdiction (before the tribunal itself), but no further access to the Administrative Court.Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:“On a proper construction, Article 39 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, and the principle of effective judicial protection, do not preclude national rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which no separate action may be brought against the decision of the competent national authority to deal with an application for asylum under an accelerated procedure, provided that the reasons which led that authority to examine the merits of the application under such a procedure can in fact be subject to judicial review in the action which may be brought against the final decision rejecting the application – a matter which falls to be determined by the referring court.”EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article: 47 ...
Austria / Verfassungsgerichtshof - B254/11 - Decision date
Abstract Key facts of the case:In the permission procedure on a rail tunnel construction, the Ministry of Traffic, Innovation and Technology (BMVIT) decided a petition for instauration of the environment compliance procedure before appealing at the Administrational Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) because of misinterpreting EU law.Results (sanctions) and key consequences or implications of the case:The right to an impartial tribunal established by law was violated. The decision of the authority has been abolished.EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article: 47 ...
CJEU - T-117/07 and T-121/07 / Judgment - Areva and Others v Commission
Abstract Key facts of the case:"Partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 Final of 24 January 2007, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/F/38.899 - Gas Insulated Switchgear), concerning a cartel in the gas insulated switchgear projects sector entailing manipulation of the bidding procedure for those projects, the fixing of minimum tender prices, the allocation of quotas and of projects, and exchanges of information, and also, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants."Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:"The Court:Joins Cases T-117/07 and T-121/07 for the purposes of the judgment; Annuls Article 2(b) and (c) of Commission Decision C (2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.899 - Gas insulated switchgear);For the infringements found in Article 1(b) to (f) of Decision C (2006) 6762 final, imposes the following fines:Alstom, société anonyme: EUR 10 327 500;Alstom: EUR 48 195 000, for which it is jointly and severally liable with Areva T&D SA. In respect of EUR 20 400 000 of the amount owed by Areva T&D SA, it is jointly and severally liable together with Areva T&D AG, Areva, société anonyme, and Areva T&D Holding SA;Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;In Case T-117/07, orders the European Commission to pay one-tenth of the costs incurred by Areva, Areva T&D Holding, Areva T&D SA and Areva T&D AG and one-tenth of its own costs. Areva, Areva T&D SA and Areva T&D AG are ordered to pay nine-tenths of their own costs and nine-tenths of the Commission's costs;In Case T-121/07, orders the Commission to pay one-tenth of the costs incurred by Alstom and one-tenth of its own costs. Alstom is ordered to pay nine-tenths of its own costs and nine-tenths of the Commission's costs."EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article: 47 ...