Private Parties and the Annulment Procedure: Can the Gap in the European System of Judicial Protection Be Closed?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".