The Role of the ECJ Beyond EU Law

Author(s):  
Roberto Baratta
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Violeta Moreno-Lax

This chapter identifies the content and scope of application of the EU prohibition of refoulement. Following the ‘cumulative standards’ approach, the analysis incorporates developments in international human rights law (IHRL) and international refugee law (IRL). Taking account of the prominent role of the ECHR and the Refugee Convention (CSR51) as sources of Article 19 CFR, these are the two main instruments taken in consideration. The scope of application of Articles 33 CSR51 and 3 ECHR will be identified in turns. Autonomous requirements of EU law will be determined by reference to the asylum acquis as interpreted by the CJEU. The main focus will be on the establishment of the territorial reach of EU non-refoulement. The idea that it may be territorially confined will be rejected. Drawing on the ‘Fransson paradigm’, a ‘functional’ understanding of the ‘implementation of EU law’ standard under Article 51 CFR will be put forward, as the decisive factor to determine applicability of Charter provisions. The implications of non-refoulement for the different measures of extraterritorial control considered in Part I will be delineated at the end.


Author(s):  
Amy Strecker

The final chapter of this book advances four main conclusions on the role of international law in landscape protection. These relate to state obligations regarding landscape protection, the influence of the World Heritage Convention and the European Landscape Convention, the substantive and procedural nature of landscape rights, and the role of EU law. It is argued that, although state practice is lagging behind the normative developments made in the field of international landscape protection, landscape has contributed positively to the corpus of international cultural heritage law and indeed has emerged as a nascent field of international law in its own right.


2021 ◽  
pp. 138826272110049
Author(s):  
Victoria E. Hooton

The role of proportionality and individual assessments in EU residency and welfare access cases has changed significantly over the course of the last decade. This article demonstrates how a search for certainty and efficiency in this area of EU law has created greater uncertainty, more legal hurdles for citizens, and less consistency in decision-making at the national level. UK case law illustrates the difficulty faced by national authorities when interpreting and applying the rules relating to welfare access and proportionality. Ultimately, the law lacks the consistency and transparency that recent CJEU case law seeks to obtain, raising the question of whether the shift from the Court's previous, more flexible, case-by-case approach was desirable after all.


2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 39-55
Author(s):  
Vasiliki (Vicky) Karageorgou

Abstract The article analyzes the cjeu Judgment in the A. Flausch et al case, which concerns the compatibility of the Greek procedural rules relating to specific aspects of the public participation in the eia context and to a specific aspect of access to justice (time limit) with the respective EU Law provisions in the face of the increasing use of digital technologies in the public participation procedures. This ruling is important, because it sets limits to the procedural autonomy of ms when it comes to the rules that are applied to the eia-related disputes and those that concern the public participation arrangements. It demonstrates, though, the lack of a steady line in the Court’s jurisprudence concerning the standards for assessing the national procedural rules and the role of Article 47 cfr. Moreover, the Court did not lay the ground for an interpretation of the ΕU public participation provisions in a way that an obligation for taking measures could be established, with the aim to ensure equal participation opportunities.


2021 ◽  
pp. 91-106
Author(s):  
Anna Magdalena Kosińska

The analyzed ruling is the first judgement which the Court of Justice passed in order to provide interpretationfor the new Student Directive (2016/801 of 11 May 2016 on the conditions of entry and residence ofthird-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemesor educational projects and au pairing). Due to its judiciary activism, the Court was able to find a connectionbetween the case pending before a national court and EU law in the case of M.A. In the end, the Court finallydecided that in the case at issue, regarding the rights of a foreign national to apply for a residence permit for thepurpose of enrolling in second-cycle studies programme in Poland, the procedure of applying for a long-stay visaon the grounds of national law must be safeguarded by the guarantees under Article 47 of the Charter of FundamentalRights. The guarantees apply to the actual states in which EU law is applicable – in this case the “StudentDirective.” It seems that the ruling in the case of M.A. will play a crucial role in facilitating students’ – TCNs’ – entryinto the territory of the Republic of Poland, while the Polish legislator, in all probability, will be obliged to changethe provisions of the national law in such a way as to make it possible for future students to access a full array oflegal remedies against the negative decisions of consuls.


2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1343-1374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Martinico

Recently, scholars have argued of the necessity of going beyond “judicial dialogues” and “conflict-and-power” approaches to the analysis of the role of national Constitutional Courts in the Union. On the one hand, there are risks connected to a “too welcoming an approach by national constitutional courts to EU law”; on the other hand, it is possible to criticize both the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and some national Constitutional Courts for other, less cooperative, decisions. I share this cautious approach for many reasons, and primarily because the preliminary ruling mechanism does not exhaust all the possible means of communication between constitutional courts and the CJEU. For instance, what Komárek calls “parallel references” can serve, in some circumstances, as a technique of alternative (or hidden) dialogue, that has favored a sort of “remote dialogue” over the years. My sole point of disagreement with this scholarly position is over the role of conflicts in this scenario. Whilst Komárek seems to confine conflicts to phenomena of mere resistance or to “‘cold’ strategic considerations,” in this work I am going to adopt a much broader idea of conflict, which goes beyond mere “conflicts and power games.”


2021 ◽  
pp. 3-25
Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird

It is neither easy to define crime nor identify the aims of criminal law but some characteristics may be universal to every crime, including that it involves public wrongs and moral wrongs. ‘Public wrongs’ reflect the important role of the public in punishing crimes. A crime incorporating a moral wrong implies that a ‘wrong’ is done or harm to others is involved but experience suggests that morality and criminal law are not coextensive. The chapter introduces students to thinking about criminalization and the need to guard against overcriminalization. It also examines the principal sources of criminal law: common law, statute, EU law, international law and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Problematically, important and serious offences and most defences in English law derive from common law rather than statute, and some offences—from public nuisance to gross negligence manslaughter—have been challenged recently on grounds of certainty and retrospectivity.


Author(s):  
Proctor Charles

This chapter reviews deposit protection arrangements which come into operation on the insolvency of a bank. It covers EU law requirements in the field of deposit protection; the implementation of those requirements in the UK by means of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme; the revisions to the powers and role of that scheme made pursuant to Part 4 of the Banking Act 2009; and the legal aspects of the recent diplomatic rift between the UK and Iceland, following from deposit protection arrangements applicable to the UK branch of an Icelandic bank.


2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 1006-1024 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jürgen Bast

AbstractThe present paper concerns procedural guarantees in immigration proceedings, thus addressing the broader question of the role of the general principles of EU law in respect of administrative decision-making. The main assertion is that certain requirements of procedural due process are recognized in EU law as fundamental rights. They must therefore be observed by Member State authorities when decisions significantly affecting the legal position of a person are taken, provided that the decision is at least partly determined by EU law. The relevant immigration proceedings involve measures related to the termination of residence as well as decisions related to denial or loss of a particular legal status. In effect, the actual scope of application of the EU's administrative fundamental rights is determined by the actual scope of activity of the European legislator. The author concludes that even a relatively ‘shallow’ harmonization of laws can lead to a ‘deep’ reshaping of the domestic legal order, by becoming a Trojan Horse for fundamental rights heretofore alien to some national immigration regimes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document