LEADER 03600nam 2200517 450 001 9910539434603321 005 20200520144314.0 010 $a90-8952-176-3 035 $a(CKB)3710000000605350 035 $a(EBL)4424496 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC4424496 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL4424496 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr11163535 035 $a(OCoLC)945612026 035 $a(EXLCZ)993710000000605350 100 $a20160315h20162016 uy| 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $2rdacontent 182 $2rdamedia 183 $2rdacarrier 200 10$aNational procedural autonomy revisisted $econsequences of differences in national administrative litigation rules for the Enforcement of European Union environmental law-- the case of the EIA directive /$fDr. Franziska Grashof 210 1$aGroningen :$cEurope Louisiana Publishing,$d[2016] 210 4$dİ2016 215 $a1 online resource (341 p.) 225 1 $aEuropean administrative law series ;$v10 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a90-8952-180-1 327 $aNational Procedural Autonomy Revisited. Consequences of Differences in National Administrative Litigation Rules for the Enforcement of European Union Environmental Law - The Case of the EIA Directive by Dr. Franziska Grashof; Acknowledgements; Contents; Abbreviations; Introduction; Part I. Uniform Rules: The EIA Procedure of the Union; Part II. Fragmented Enforcement: National Rules in EIA Cases; Part III. Beyond National Procedural Autonomy?; Hypothetical Case Study; Bibliography; Online Sources; Table of Cases; Table of Legislation; Curriculum Vitae 330 $a"In National Procedural Autonomy Revisited, Franziska Grashof reconsiders one of the leading principles of European administrative law: the principle of national procedural autonomy. Her work shows that due to different national administrative litigation rules, common European rules are enforced in a fragmented manner. This is illustrated with the example of the judicial enforcement of Directive 2011/92/EU on environmental impact assessment for projects in the legal systems of Germany, England and the Netherlands. Under the same rule of Union law, litigants are treated procedurally unequally, there are different enforcement chances, and judges come to different conclusions not because of diverging interpretations of the law, but because of different administrative litigation rules. Subsequently, it is discussed whether it is necessary, desirable and possible to develop common rules of administrative litigation (in environmental matters) in the Union. It is argued, that by means of the instruments which are available in the Union - specifically legislation, jurisprudence, and comparative scholarship - a more precise common standard for administrative litigation (in environmental matters) should be created, so that the principle is: ubi ius europaeum, ibi remedium europaeum"--Back cover. 410 0$aEuropean administrative law series ;$vv. 10. 606 $aEnvironmental law$zEuropean Union countries 606 $aEnvironmental protection$zEuropean Union countries 607 $aEurope$zEuropean Union countries$2fast 608 $aElectronic books. 615 0$aEnvironmental law 615 0$aEnvironmental protection 676 $a344.046 700 $aGrashof$b Franziska$01182477 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910539434603321 996 $aNational procedural autonomy revisisted$92743566 997 $aUNINA