In EU consumer law, the rise of Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - which guarantees the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial - over the past decade has coincided with a wave of crisis-induced litigation. Courts were confronted with large numbers of cases against overindebted consumers. This has prompted many questions on the need for effective judicial protection, for instance in mortgage enforcement and order for payment procedures.

This book provides a unique perspective on the role of civil courts at the crossroads of EU fundamental rights, consumer law and access to justice. It examines how the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as civil courts in Spain and the Netherlands, refer to Article 47 in unfair terms cases, where procedural obstacles and inequalities have become particularly visible - especially in Spanish case law. The analysis reveals a divergence between European and national practices and also shows the potential of Article 47, which is often wrongly equated with the principle of effectiveness, in consumer litigation.

Effective Judicial Protection in Consumer Litigation makes a vital contribution to the debate on the functions of Article 47 and fundamental rights reasoning in European private law adjudication and is a must read for anyone interested in the application of Article 47 in judicial decision-making.

This book provides insight into modern collective judicial decision-making. Courts all over the world sit in panels of several judges, yet the processes by which these judges produce the courts' decisions differ markedly. Judges from some of the world's most notable judicial bodies, in both the civilian and the common law tradition and from supra-/international courts, share their experiences and reflect on the challenges to which their collective endeavour gives rise. They address matters such as the question of panel constitution, the operation of rapporteur systems, pre- and post-hearing conferences, the hearing procedure itself, the nature of the interaction between the judicial panel and parties' advocates, the extent to which a unitary judgment of the court or at least a single majority judgment is required or deemed desirable, and how it is ultimately arrived at through different voting mechanisms. The judicial views are supplemented by a number of academic commentaries. Collective Judging in Comparative Perspective serves as an inspiration for future court design. Sir Jack Beatson (formerly Court of Appeal of England and Wales) Thomas von Danwitz (Court of Justice of the European Union) Matthew Dyson (University of Oxford) Harry T Edwards (United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit) Wolfgang Ernst (University of Oxford) Kevin Garnett QC (formerly Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office) Msgr Markus Graulich (Pontifical Council for Legislative Text) Beate Gsell (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich) Birke Häcker (University of Oxford) Dominique Hascher (Cour de cassation) Sir Launcelot Henderson (Court of Appeal of England and Wales) Rchard Hyland (Rutgers Law School) Susan Kiefel AC (High Court of Australia) Georg Kodek (Austrian Supreme Court) James Lee (King's College London) Sir Keith Lindblom (Court of Appeal of England and Wales) Gertrude Lübbe-Wolff (formerly German Federal Constitutional Court) Theodor Meron (International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals) Angelika Nussberger (formerly European Court of Human Rights) Akira Ojima (Chief Judicial Research Official, Supreme Court of Japan) Naoki Onishi (Otsu District Court, Japan) Christos Ravanides (Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations) Lord Reed of Allermuir (Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) Thomas Rüfner (University of Trier) Johanna Schmidt-Räntsch (German Federal Court of Justice) Thomas Stadelmann (Swiss Supreme Court) Wolfgang Ernst is Regius Professor of Civil Law, University of Oxford, and Fellow of All Souls College.Birke Häcker is the Professor of Comparative Law, University of Oxford, and Fellow of Brasenose College.

More and more people are turning to human rights courts to seek protection against prejudice, disadvantage or exclusion on account of their cultural and economic particularities. Human rights courts are thus increasingly faced with the difficult task of deciding these cases, which raise a number of complex and contested legal questions. To what extent can courts accommodate cultural diversity, protect all kinds of groups or interfere in socio-economic policy? This book argues that one of the problems encountered in dealing with such cases is the courts' tendency to assess them from a 'compartmentalised' or fragmentary perspective. This line of reasoning isolates or places into 'boxes' the various interrelated components of the right holder's claim and the norms concerning the case to their detriment. This book critiques this reductionist approach that is out of touch with real life and which, moreover, tends to leave the roots of the alleged violations intact. To counterbalance this tendency, an innovative, integrated and person-centered approach to adjudicating claims of cultural difference and economic disadvantage is put forward. Drawing on the concepts of intersectionality, indivisibility and normative interdependence, the book presents specific notions and methods for approaching the appreciation of rights holders, harms and norms in a holistic manner. A wide selection of case law from both the European and the Inter-American courts of human rights supports the normative framework developed in this book. The sample mostly includes cases brought by Muslims, Roma, Travelers, indigenous peoples, afro-descendants and people living in poverty. Cultural Difference and Economic Disadvantage in Regional Human Rights Courts: An Integrated View combines legal theory with practical insights in analysing both cultural an economic issues, which are rarely addressed together in human rights legal scholarship. It also offers a context-sensitive and relational view of human rights law that puts rights holders at the heart of the legal analysis, taking heed of the social structures within which legal frameworks operate. The book makes for compelling reading for students, academics and practitioners working in the fields of human rights law, jurisprudence, constitutional law, legal theory and feminist and cultural studies. Valeska David is a lawyer from Chile. She holds an LL.M from Utrecht University and a PhD from Ghent University. She has previously worked as a legal consultant, researcher and lecturer for human rights institutions in Latin America and Europe.