The enforcement of fundamental rights imposes continuous interaction between national and supranational law. Within the latter the role of E.U. law has become more and more relevant over the past decades. Not only the binding nature of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has modified the sources of substantive law, bringing a direct impact over legislation of E.U. Member States, but the principle of national autonomy in defining procedures due to enforce rights based on E.U. law has been progressively limited by the principles of effectiveness, dissuasiveness and proportionality as stated at the E.U. level. The application of these principles in several areas of E.U. related law (from consumer to labour law, from migration to privacy protection, to mention some) has stimulated an intense dialogue between the European Court of Justice and national courts. The same principles have influenced the operation of many other national institutions due to enforce fundamental rights and other rights recognized at the E.U. level in different areas from regulated markets to competition law.
This paper addresses the question of interaction between E.U. and national enforcing authorities in the area of fundamental rights and, more particularly, consumer protection. Looking at the different techniques of judicial interaction, it wonders whether the principles of effectiveness, dissuasiveness and proportionality represent a sufficient ground for enabling a cooperative dialogue among enforcers operating at different levels and in different countries. Moreover, it questions whether the different modes of interpreting those principles may be linked with the different legal traditions that shape national enforcement systems and whether this fragmentation may be overcome to attain an effective protection of rights. Part of the analysis will be grounded on a questionnaire-based survey on national enforcement systems in consumer and competition law.
