| Summary: | The focus of this thesis is the principle of State liability for judicial infringements and the relationship between this principle and the effective judicial protection of individuals from the point of view of the principle of procedural homogeneity in EU and EEA law. The EFTA Court case of Kolbeinsson will be used as a base for exploring this topic in EEA law. In chapter one, the role of courts in EU and EEA law will be examined in order to determine the effects they have had on shaping the European legal order. The Advisory Opinion procedure between national courts and the EFTA court will be studied in particular, to determine whether the procedure is fully optional. This will be followed by an account of the development of the principle of State liability in EU law in chapter three and the effects that the principle has had on ensuring compliance with EU law. The case of Köbler will be studied in particular with respect to the effective judicial protection of individuals. Following this, the principle of State liability for breaches of EEA law will be examined in chapter four and likewise the effect that the principle has had on ensuring compliance with EEA law. The case of Kolbeinsson will be analysed in detail and the possibility of establishing the principle of State liability for judicial breaches of EEA law, particularly from the point of view of Iceland. Finally, in chapter five, the effective judicial protection of individuals in EEA law will be examined from the point of view of the principle of effective judicial protection, procedural homogeneity, access to justice and the effectiveness of EEA law. This will be done in order to demonstrate that the case of Kolbeinsson indicates that courts cannot stretch EEA law further to ensure homogenous protection of rights in EU and EEA law through the principle of State liability and if individuals are to enjoy effective judicial protection and access to justice in EEA law, reforms are inevitable in the EEA legal order.
|
|---|