A second major point of intersection arises from the fact that EU law creates, in certain situations, rights and obligations directly applicable to individuals, whether in relations between individuals and Member States or between individuals themselves. The realisation of these rights takes place in national courts, within the framework of civil and commercial disputes. Examples of substantive areas where this occurs include competition law, labour law, consumer contract law – including package travel contracts – product liability and agency law, all of which are regulated by Treaty articles and EU directives. It is for national procedural systems to provide the rules and procedural means that make these rights effective. However, such systems may not provide adequate rules and remedies, or, where they do, may limit the realisation of rights arising from substantive EU rules. Furthermore, litigants are, in practice, treated unequally across national jurisdictions on matters such as standing, time limits and the burden of proof, which may conflict with the fundamental principle of uniform application and equality in Community law. Thus, domestic procedural systems can act as a de facto obstacle to the uniform application of substantive EU rules. A third point of intersection arises with the creation of the European Union at Maastricht in 1993, including the Third Pillar (Justice and Home Affairs), and with the political impetus for the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, introduced in Amsterdam in 1999. This gives rise to and legitimises autonomous citizen demands, such as the right to a fair trial and access to justice. When the Union assumes social objectives, the position of consumers, small and mediumsized enterprises, and other economically vulnerable actors can influence the demands placed on procedural systems, including the need for legal aid and special procedures for small claims. In this context, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights enshrines the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial, and the draft Reform Treaty under discussion at the time explicitly included “effective access to justice” as one of the objectives of measures in the field of judicial cooperation. Litigants in the Union thus participate in civil proceedings subject to modern requirements such as efficiency, accuracy, transparency and cost containment. As EU civil procedural law expands in depth, scope and methods, the nature of procedural autonomy becomes less clear, and the inherent tension between procedural autonomy and harmonisation becomes apparent. from differences with one’s own national procedural rules. Even if jurisdiction and enforcement are mutually regulated, there remains additional complexity and an increased financial burden when litigating abroad, which can discourage cross-border trade and constitute an obstacle to the Internal Market. 33 THE PRINCIPLE OF MEMBER STATES’ PROCEDURAL AUTONOMY
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==