The Margin of Appreciation in the Case Law of the Court of Justice: Proportionality and Levels of Fundamental Rights Protection

2021 ◽  
pp. 231-243
Author(s):  
José A. Gutiérrez-Fons
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation

Local law repercussions on EU extradition law

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Niblock ◽  
Anna Oehmichen
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Local Law

The present article examines the developments of extradition law in Europe, with a special focus on case law in England & Wales and Germany. It explores the effects that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union has had on extradition law within Europe, and how the tensions between mutual trust and fundamental rights protection in this area have been addressed by the two jurisdictions.

Composing Europe’s Fundamental Rights Area: A Case for Discursive Pluralism

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 210-246
Author(s):  
Louise HALLESKOV STORGAARD
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Normative Basis ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis article offers a perspective on how the objective of a strong and coherent European protection standard pursued by the fundamental rights amendments of the Lisbon Treaty can be achieved, as it proposes a discursive pluralistic framework to understand and guide the relationship between the EU Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. It is argued that this framework – which is suggested as an alternative to the EU law approach to the Strasbourg system applied by the CJEU in Opinion 2/13 and its Charter-based case law – has a firm doctrinal, case law and normative basis. The article ends by addressing three of the most pertinent challenges to European fundamental rights protection through the prism of the proposed framework.

Article 51 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights from the Perspective of the National Judge

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 53-85
Author(s):  
Petr Mádr
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Track Record ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Academic Debate

This article contributes to the growing scholarship on the national application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights ('the Charter') by assessing what challenges national courts face when dealing with Article 51 of the Charter, which sets out the Charter's material scope of application. In keeping with this aim, the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) – with its general formulas, abstract guidance and implementation categories – is discussed strictly from the perspective of the national judge. The article then presents the findings of a thorough study of the case law of the Czech Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) and evaluates this Court's track record when assessing the Charter's applicability. National empirical data of that kind can provide valuable input into the CJEU-centred academic debate on the Charter's scope of application.

Verfassungsanalogien – Das Bundesverfassungsgericht an der Grenze der Verfassungsinterpretation

Der Staat ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-41
Author(s):  
Carsten Bäcker
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Sich Eine ◽  
Statutory Interpretation ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Federal Constitutional

Analogien sind methodologisch hoch umstritten; sie bewegen sich an der Grenze der Gesetzesinterpretation. Dem methodologischen Streit um die Analogien unterliegt die Frage nach den Grenzen der Gesetzesinterpretation. In der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts finden sich eine Reihe von Verfassungsanalogien. Diese Analogien zum Verfassungsgesetz werden zwar nur selten ausdrücklich als solche bezeichnet, sie finden sich aber in einer Vielzahl von dogmatischen Konstruktionen in der Rechtsprechung – wie etwa der Erweiterung des Grundrechtsschutzes für Deutsche auf EU-Bürger oder der Annahme von Gesetzgebungskompetenzen des Bundes als Annex zu dessen geschriebenen Kompetenzen. Die Existenz derartiger Analogien zum Verfassungsgesetz verlangt nach Antworten auf die Fragen nach den Grenzen der Kompetenz zur Verfassungsinterpretation. Der Beitrag spürt diesen Grenzen nach – und schließt mit der Aufforderung an das Bundesverfassungsgericht, die Annahme von Verfassungsanalogien zu explizieren und die sich darin spiegelnden Annahmen über die Grenzen der Kompetenz zur Verfassungsinterpretation zu reflektieren. Constitutional analogies. The Federal Constitutional Court at the limit of constitutional interpretation From a methodological point of view, the use of analogies in legal argument is highly controversial, for they reach to the limits of statutory interpretation. Underlying the methodological dispute over analogies is the question of what the limits of statutory interpretation are or ought to be. A number of analogies from constitutional law can be found in the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court. Although these analogies to constitutional law are rarely explicitly designated as such, in the case law they can be found in a variety of dogmatic constructions – for example, in the extension of Germans’ fundamental rights protection to EU citizens, or the assumption of legislative powers of the federal state as an appendix to its written powers. The existence of such analogies to constitutional law calls for answers to the question of the limits of the power to interpret the Constitution. It is the aim of this article to trace these limits, and in its conclusion it calls on the Federal Constitutional Court to explicate the adoption of analogies in constitutional law and to reflect on the assumptions found therein – respecting the limits of the power to interpret the Constitution.

The Protection of Turkish Citizens Against Expulsion—This Far and No Further? The Impact of the Ziebell Case

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 239-267
Author(s):  
Kathrin Hamenstädt
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Association Agreement ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Council Decision ◽  
European Court ◽  
The One ◽  
The Impact

This Article focuses on the Ziebell judgment, in which the European Court of Justice rejected the analogous application of the protection against expulsion for Union citizens to Turkish citizens covered by the Association Agreement. The judgment is placed in the context of the opinion of the Advocate General, the pre-Ziebell judgments of the Court, and judgments of German courts regarding the expulsion of Turkish citizens. On the one hand, against the background of previous case-law of the Court, the judgment might be seen as a setback. On the other hand, the Court's reference to the Long-Term Residents Directive also provides for new interpretative possibilities. Next to the applicability of the directive and the advantages and disadvantages for Turkish nationals triggered by this shift, the interpretative possibilities are discussed in light of fundamental rights and the stand-still obligation anchored in Association Council Decision 1/80.

Between Informal Dialogue and Official Criticism

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 409-420
Author(s):  
Anna Podolska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Proceedings

Abstract There are various forms of jurisdictional dialogue. In addition to drawing from the case law of another court or seeking direct assistance of such another court in passing the judgment, we can notice in practice situations when by issuing a verdict the courts are communicating with each other. The rulings of the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the free movement of judgments in the European Union and protection of fundamental rights are the example of such activities. Each of these bodies was interpreting separately the extent to which the mechanisms of recognising and executing the judgments may interfere with the level of protection of fundamental rights. A common conclusion concerns assigning the priority to protection of fundamental rights, while individual bodies were determining differently the standards of such protection. The analysed judgments can be construed as a communication between these bodies. Although no direct discussion takes place between these courts, this is still a form of interaction which affects the development of the case law and understanding of the boundaries of mutual recognition of judgments and protection of human rights within judicial proceedings.

scholarly journals The Essence of the Fundamental Right to an Effective Remedy and to a Fair Trial in the Case-Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union: The Best Is Yet to Come?

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 884-903
Author(s):  
Kathleen Gutman
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
To Come ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis contribution examines the developing contours of the essence of the fundamental right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial in the light of salient case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is divided into three main parts. The first part provides an overview of the meaning of the essence of fundamental rights in EU law and the scope of the inquiry in relation to Article 47 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union (“the Charter”). The second part evaluates the essence of the fundamental right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial in connection with justified limitations that may be placed on its exercise as provided for in Article 52(1) of the Charter within the framework of the EU system of fundamental rights protection, which in turn implicates the relationship with the Court’s case-law on national procedural autonomy, equivalence, and effectiveness. The third part delves into the essence of the fundamental right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial within the framework of the EU system of judicial protection, as illustrated by the Court’s case-law in several areas, including standing for individuals in direct actions before the EU courts, judicial independence, and restrictive measures in the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Through this analysis, the author argues that, while much awaits further refinement, certain recent developments in the Court’s case–law indicate that the essence of the fundamental right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial can play a meaningful role in the EU system of fundamental rights protection and the EU system of judicial protection more broadly, and thus the best may be yet to come as that case-law progresses in the future.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document