In contemporary European law, it has become increasingly evident that EU law is not implemented according to the traditional distinction between direct and indirect administration, but through various forms of cooperation between national and EU authorities, as well as between national authorities themselves. These cooperative mechanisms generate so-called ‘composite procedures’, that is, administrative decision-making processes which involve administrative authorities belonging to more than one legal system for the implementation of EU law. This phenomenon has generated increasing scholar attention with attempts at offering taxonomies, labels, analyses of composite procedures in different EU policy fields, or insights regarding the question of access to justice. This chapter studies a less explored angle in this debate: the question of the remedies available to redress possible fundamental rights violations occurring in the context of the composite procedures. It first provides a categorisation of composite procedures, together with an examination of possible fundamental rights violations. The chapter then outlines the available remedies in selected scenarios, identifying possible gaps. The chapter will show that, while composite procedures are capable of violating both substantive and procedural EU fundamental rights, the current system of remedies seems to be ill-suited to provide effective remedies in multi-jurisdictional decision-making processes.

This contribution examines the possibilities for individuals to access remedies against potential violations of their fundamental rights by EU actors, specifically EU agencies’ deployment of artificial intelligence (AI). Presenting the intricate landscape of the EU’s border surveillance, the chapter sheds light on the prominent role of Frontex in developing and managing AI systems, including automated risk assessments and drone-based aerial surveillance. These two examples are used to illustrate how the EU?s AI-powered conduct endangers fundamental rights protected under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Risks emerge for privacy and data protection rights, non-discrimination, and other substantive rights, such as the right to asylum. In light of these concerns, the chapter then examines the possibilities to access remedies by first considering the impact of AI uses on the procedural rights to good administration and effective judicial protection, before clarifying the emerging remedial system under the AI Act in its interplay with the EU’s existing data protection framework. Lastly, the chapter sketches the evolving role of the European Data Protection Supervisor, pointing out the key areas demanding further clarifications in order to fill the remedial gaps.

This chapter looks at how the fair trial guarantees under EU law are implemented and scrutinised in civil matters. It argues that the normative and institutional framework for the implementation of these guarantees in the field of civil judicial cooperation is structurally deficient insofar as their application and assessment by domestic courts remain largely exempt from EU oversight. This deficiency is attributed to the limited scope of CJEU jurisdiction over fundamental rights. It is nevertheless suggested that recourse to Article 19(1)(2) TEU by the CJEU as a benchmark for judicial organisation may give the Court a tighter grip and enhance the quality of civil justice across the EU.

The chapter argues that judicial control mechanisms can provide effective remedies for individuals in ‘grey zones’ provided that the applicant can establish the responsibility of the respondent State and the (quasi-)judicial body is willing to exercise certain judicial activism to promote individuals’ access to international justice. The chapter highlights certain major deficiencies of judicial control mechanisms, before recommending certain tools of judicial activism that may promote individual applications from ‘grey zones’. If the attributability of the conduct to the respondent State is established, judicial control mechanisms are likely to have an impact on the human rights situation in the ‘grey zone’.