Tutela jurisdicional efetiva no direito da União Europeia. Dimensões teoréticas e práticas

Abstract

Não sendo um Estado (nomeadamente, federal), a União Europeia apresenta-se antes como uma associação sui generis de Estados soberanos desprovida da competência das competências e de um poder constituinte, atributos que permanecem nos respetivos Estados membros. Nessa medida, a sua instituição jurisdicional - o Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia - diferentemente do que ocorre com os supremos tribunais federais (v. g. o Suprem Court norte-americano ou o Bundesverfassungsgericht alemão), não funciona (nem poderia) como uma instância de apelo das decisões proferidas pelos órgãos jurisdicionais dos Estados membros; igualmente, não dispõe de poderes que lhe permitam invalidar ou reformular tais decisões, tal como não pode invalidar os atos nacionais que se afigurem contrários ao direito da União. Na verdade, a prossecução das atribuições da União Europeia rege-se pelo princípio da competência de atribuição, que, extensível ao exercício das competências das suas instituições, baliza a atuação dos órgãos integrados no Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia, de forma a que eles atuem somente no quadro competencial que os Tratados (maxime o Tratado sobre o Funcionamento da União Europeia) preveem. Tal, porém, não obsta a que esses órgãos tenham a seu cargo um relevante papel na realização da tutela jurisdicional efetiva da ampla legalidade europeia, a qual, por sua vez, se subdivide entre objetiva (ou estrita) legalidade e pretensões de natureza subjetiva (direitos, principalmente fundamentais, e interesses) reconhecidas pela respetiva ordem, sobretudo aos particulares, e cujo respeito é condição da legalidade dos atos das instituições. As ações por incumprimento, por omissão e de indemnização, bem como o recurso de anulação, típicos instrumentos processuais do tradicional contencioso da União, são instaurados com vista a alcançar tal móbil. Não obstante, tendo em conta as limitações decorrentes do referido princípio, os órgãos jurisdicionais nacionais dos Estados membros também desempenham uma função essencial, por ventura preponderante, na prossecução da referida tutela jurisdicional efetiva, tendo sido erigidos em órgãos jurisdicionais comuns de aplicação do direito da União Europeia. Sobretudo através do reenvio prejudicial, mas também mediante o recurso de anulação, do principal órgão da instituição jurisdicional da União - o Tribunal de Justiça - têm emanado vários arestos que enunciaram e delimitaram essa competência, a qual implicou uma alteração no paradigma da atuação dos tribunais dos Estados membros, uma vez que estes passaram a desdobrar-se funcionalmente entre órgãos jurisdicionais nacionais que zelam pela salvaguarda da respetiva ordem interna, e órgãos jurisdicionais da União velando pela proteção do respetivo direito. O presente trabalho debruça-se sobre a temática da tutela jurisdicional efetiva na União Europeia. Sugere-se uma noção da mesma, analisam-se os seus pressupostos e decorrências, apontam-se propostas de melhoramento do sistema de garantia judicial da juridicidade da União, tendo por referência o quadro jurídico-institucional introduzido pelo Tratado de Lisboa, sem ignorar os tratados que o antecederam; comentam-se aspetos dogmáticos bem como questões práticas que, marcadas sobretudo pela chancela do Tribunal de Justiça, contribuíram para o status quo do tema. Palavras-Chave: Legalidade europeia; direitos fundamentais; Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia; órgãos jurisdicionais nacionais. Not being a State (namely Federal), the European Union comes forward as a sui generis association of sovereign Nations without the competence of competences and a constituent power that are attributes belonging to the respective member States. In that regard, its jurisdictional institution - the European Union Court of Justice - unlike it occurs with federal supreme courts (e.g. the North American Supreme Court or the German Bundesverfassungsgericht), does not work (nor it should) as an appeal body for the decisions of the jurisdictional bodies of the Member States; likewise, it does not hold any powers that allow an invalidation or restructuring of those decisions, as it cannot invalidate national acts appearing in conflict to the Union law. Actually, the pursuit of the European Union assignments is ruled by the principle of power of action that, being extended to its institutions competences, limits the activity of the bodies that are integrated in the European Union Court of Justice in a way they act only within the competence framework that Treaties predict (particularly the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union). However, that does not prevent those to bodies have a relevant role in the fulfillment of the effective jurisdictional protection of the broad European legality, which, in turn, is subdivided between objective (or strict) legality and ambitions of a subjective nature (rights, mainly fundamental rights and interests) recognized by the respective order, mainly considering individuals, whose respect is a legality condition of institutional acts. Infringement actions, by omission or indemnity, as well as the action for annulment that are typical procedure instruments of the traditional Union litigation, are implemented in order to achieve such motive. In spite of that, considering the limitations arising from the above mentioned principle, domestic jurisdictional bodies of Member States also perform an important role, perhaps prominent, in the pursuit of the effective jurisdictional protection, appearing in common jurisdictional bodies of application of European Union law. Mainly through preliminary ruling, but also through action for annulment of the main body of the Union jurisdictional institution - the Court of Justice - several court decisions have come to the surface and have cited and delimited that competence, which implied a paradigm shift in the action of European Member courts as they started to functionally unfold into national jurisdictional bodies that ensure the protection of the respective internal order, and the union jurisdictional bodies protecting the respective law. The present study approaches the topic of effective jurisdictional protection in the European Union. We suggest a concept for it, analyzing its assumptions and effects, proposing improvements for the legal guarantee of the Union judiciality and having by reference the institutional-legal framework introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, without ignoring the previous treaties; we also comment dogmatic aspects as well as practical issues marked by the Court of Justice, that have contributed to the status quo of the subject. Keywords: European legality; fundamental rights; European Union Court of Justice; domestic jurisdictional bodies.

Not being a State (namely Federal), the European Union comes forward as a sui generis association of sovereign Nations without the competence of competences and a constituent power that are attributes belonging to the respective member States. In that regard, its jurisdictional institution - the European Union Court of Justice - unlike it occurs with federal supreme courts (e.g. the North American Supreme Court or the German Bundesverfassungsgericht), does not work (nor it should) as an appeal body for the decisions of the jurisdictional bodies of the Member States; likewise, it does not hold any powers that allow an invalidation or restructuring of those decisions, as it cannot invalidate national acts appearing in conflict to the Union law. Actually, the pursuit of the European Union assignments is ruled by the principle of power of action that, being extended to its institutions competences, limits the activity of the bodies that are integrated in the European Union Court of Justice in a way they act only within the competence framework that Treaties predict (particularly the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union). However, that does not prevent those to bodies have a relevant role in the fulfillment of the effective jurisdictional protection of the broad European legality, which, in turn, is subdivided between objective (or strict) legality and ambitions of a subjective nature (rights, mainly fundamental rights and interests) recognized by the respective order, mainly considering individuals, whose respect is a legality condition of institutional acts. Infringement actions, by omission or indemnity, as well as the action for annulment that are typical procedure instruments of the traditional Union litigation, are implemented in order to achieve such motive. In spite of that, considering the limitations arising from the above mentioned principle, domestic jurisdictional bodies of Member States also perform an important role, perhaps prominent, in the pursuit of the effective jurisdictional protection, appearing in common jurisdictional bodies of application of European Union law. Mainly through preliminary ruling, but also through action for annulment of the main body of the Union jurisdictional institution - the Court of Justice - several court decisions have come to the surface and have cited and delimited that competence, which implied a paradigm shift in the action of European Member courts as they started to functionally unfold into national jurisdictional bodies that ensure the protection of the respective internal order, and the union jurisdictional bodies protecting the respective law. The present study approaches the topic of effective jurisdictional protection in the European Union. We suggest a concept for it, analyzing its assumptions and effects, proposing improvements for the legal guarantee of the Union judiciality and having by reference the institutional-legal framework introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, without ignoring the previous treaties; we also comment dogmatic aspects as well as practical issues marked by the Court of Justice, that have contributed to the status quo of the subject.