- proportionality: penalties must not be out of proportion to the seriousness of the offence;32
- the right to be heard before official action is taken;
- legal certainty: national authorities must not act on the basis of unpublished arrangements between Ministries of Justice; and
- the right not to be tried twice for the same acts.
The right to judicial review of all measures in the sphere of EU law
Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU begins:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article.”
Even before the Charter was made part of EU law by the new Treaties that came into force in 2009, the Court had repeated in many judgments that there is always a right to judicial review of measures of both national and EU institutions, in the sphere of EU law. If the private party has no right to go directly before the General Court, national courts must provide judicial review.33 The extensive case law was based on the Treaty Article, now Article 19(1) TEU, which says that the Court of Justice:
“… shall ensure that in the interpretation and application of the Treaties the law is observed”.
32 See e.g., Case C-58/95, Gallotti [1996] ECR I-4345. 33 The first cases were Case 222/84 Johnston v. RUC [1986] ECR 1651, para. 18; Case 222/86 Heylans [1987] ECR 4097, para. 14. Since then the duty to provide judicial review of national measures and Community acts has been referred to in numerous cases. See Case 294/83, Parti écologiste “Les Verts”, [1986] ECR 1339 at para. 23; Case 302/87, Parliament v. Council, [1988] ECR 5615 para. 20; Case C249/88, Commission v. Belgium, 1991 ECR I 1275 para. 25; Case C-87/90, Verholen, [1991] ECR I-3757 para. 24; Case C-340/89, Vlassopoulou, [1991] ECR I-2357 para. 22; Case C-97/91 Borelli [1992] ECR I-6313; Case C-465/93, Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft [1995] ECR I-3761; Case C-393/96P (R) Antonissen, [1997] ECR I441, para. 36; Case C-185/97 Coote v. Grenada [1998] ECR I-5199; Case C-12/97 Upjohn [1999] ECR I-223; Case C-7/98 Krombach [2000] ECR I-1935; Case C228/98, Dounias [2000] ECR I-577; Case C-174/98P Van der Wal [2000] ECR I-1; Case C-1/99 Kofisa, [2001] ECR I-207; Case C-239/99 Nachi, [2001] ECR I-1197; Case C-424/99, Commission v. Austria, [2001] ECR I-9285 para. 45; Case C-459/99, MRAX, [2002] ECR I-6591 para. 101; Case C-141/02P, Max-Mobil [2005] ECR I1283; Case T-116/01 P&O Ferries, [2003] ECR II-2957, para. 209; Case C-50/00P, Union de Pequeños, [2002] ECR I-6677; Case C-1/99, Kofisa, [2001] ECR I-207; Case C-205/99, Empresas Navieras, [2001] ECR I-1271; Case T-231/99, Joynson, [2002] ECR II-2085 paras. 32–34; Case C-314/01, Siemens, [2004] ECR I-2549, para. 50; Case C-167/02P, Rothley v. Parliament, [2004] ECR I-3149 at para. 46; Case C-13/01, Salifero, [2003] ECR I-8679 para. 50; Case C-461/03, Gaston Schul, [2005] ECR I10513 para. 22; Case C-173/03, Traghetti del Mediterraneo, June 13, 2006, especially para. 33; Case C-131/03P, Reynolds Tobacco, [2006] ECR I-7795 para. 79 et seq.; Case T-306/01, Yusuf, [2005] ECR II-3533 at para. 261; Case C-232/05, Commission v.
France (recovery of State aid), [2006] ECR I-10071 at para. 57; Case C-506/04 Wilson [2006] ECR I-8613; Case C-432/05, Unibet, [2007] ECR I at para. 37; Case T170/06, Alrosa v. Commission, [2006] ECR II-2601 para. 194 et seq.; Case C-55/06, Arcor, Opinion of Advocate General Maduro of July 18, 2007, at paras. 96–99.