Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-7jkgd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-20T05:59:39.882Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Balancing In European Law: Anatomy of Judicial Practices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2017

Leone Niglia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Symposium
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 16 , 2014 , pp. 333 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a stress on each set of rights see respectively below, P Mengozzi, ‘The Judicial Protection of Individual Rights and the Principle of Proportionality after the Lisbon Treaty’; A Rosas, ‘Balancing Fundamental Rights in EU law’ and T Tridimas, ‘Fundamental Rights, General Principles of EU Law, and the Charter’; L Niglia, ‘Taking Private Law Rights Seriously: of Balancing and the Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union’.

2 Respectively CJEU cases Schmidberger and Omega: see below.

3 Mengozzi, ‘The Judicial Protection of Individual Rights and the Principle of Proportionality after the Lisbon Treaty’ at p 339. See also Niglia, ‘Taking Private Law Rights Seriously’ at p 413 et seq (on balancing, rights’ optimisation and hybridisation).

4 Rosas, ‘Balancing Fundamental Rights in EU Law’ at p 350.

5 Tridimas, ‘Fundamental Rights, General Principles of EU Law, and the Charter’ at p 392.

6 Niglia, ‘Taking Private Law Rights Seriously’ at p 413 et seq. See also Mengozzi, ‘The Judicial Protection of Individual Rights and the Principle of Proportionality after the Lisbon Treaty’ when discussing the DEB case at p 340 et seq.