Participative guaranties in the european union individual procedures

Abstract

The individual procedures in use in the European community – specifically the offer of participative guaranties in confrontations – are interesting for two reasons: firstly because this type of procedure constitutes the most evident example of how the utilization of the expression democratic “deficit”, when referring to the European community, is neither always correct not does it picture all the procedural typologies. It is therefore undeniable that, for the European community, there is imprecision in the term to refer to the endo-procedural guaranties, but such imprecision preserves mainly the collective procedures, whereas the interested parties have no way to bring the administration choices together. In the individual procedures, on the other hand, the contrary assertion is fully acknowledged. A second reason of interest derives from the reading of the jurisprudence built in matter. Substantially, this type of procedure is the one in which, for the first time, European judges stated the existence of rights (in this case, the right to contrary assertion with decisory administration) directly at supranational level. European citizens and companies saw the acknowledgment of the possibility to address directly the Court of Justice or the Court of First Instance, without needing to go through the national judges. This acknowledgment is equivalent to an officialization of the integrated nature of the communitary order. Three procedural typologies will be examined: the first is the one related to the competition procedures, which constitute the first type of procedure in which the participative right of the companies (and in some cases, of the individuals) is acknowledged. The second procedural typology is the one related to the export procedures. The third one, finally, is the one related to the anti-dumping procedures. In the latter, judges frequently resume the merit of the decisions taken on the themes of competition, expanding it to the several and new typical facts. In the course of the article, which follows the above mentioned sequence, the main differences between the hypotheses will be clarified, and the most important contents of the sentences will be highlighted.