The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice in the Light of the EU Accession to the ECHR—Is the Break-up Inevitable?

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 227-254
Author(s):  
Alexander Kornezov
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
Core Elements ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Even though the decision to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) is a fait accompli, the terms under which the accession should take place are still very much open to debate. The present chapter focuses specifically on the possible tensions which may arise in the aftermath of the EU’s accession to the ECHR in four of the core elements of the EU area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ): recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, wrongful removal or retention of a child, the Common European Asylum System and the European Arrest Warrant. It then puts forward a number of solutions which could be included either in the accession agreement itself or in the post-accession case law of the ECtHR and which allow not only for the preservation of the coherence and integrity of the AFSJ but also for external judicial control on human rights matters in the AFSJ.

The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice in the Light of the EU Accession to the ECHR—Is the Break-up Inevitable?

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 227-254
Author(s):  
Alexander Kornezov
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
Core Elements ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Eu

AbstractEven though the decision to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) is a fait accompli, the terms under which the accession should take place are still very much open to debate. The present chapter focuses specifically on the possible tensions which may arise in the aftermath of the EU’s accession to the ECHR in four of the core elements of the EU area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ): recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, wrongful removal or retention of a child, the Common European Asylum System and the European Arrest Warrant. It then puts forward a number of solutions which could be included either in the accession agreement itself or in the post-accession case law of the ECtHR and which allow not only for the preservation of the coherence and integrity of the AFSJ but also for external judicial control on human rights matters in the AFSJ.

CHILD ABDUCTION: RECENT JURISPRUDENCE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

2015 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Beaumont ◽  
Katarina Trimmings ◽  
Lara Walker ◽  
Jayne Holliday
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Habitual Residence ◽  
Child Abduction ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis article examines how the European Court of Human Rights has clarified its jurisprudence on how the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention Article 13 exceptions are to be applied in a manner that is consistent with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It also analyses recent case law of the European Court of Human Rights on how the courts in the EU are to handle child abduction cases where the courts of the habitual residence have made use of their power under Article 11 of Brussels IIa.

Notstandskontrolle

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix Weber
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The State ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Level System ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
States Of Emergency ◽  
Multi Level

Between 2015 and 2017, France, Turkey and Ukraine, as member states of the European Convention on Human Rights, declared a state of emergency according to Art. 15 ECHR. The events associated with the suspension of Convention rights show the current significance of the legal standardisation of political and social states of emergency. In the end it is all about the question of who ultimately controls the state of emergency: the sovereign state, the state community with a supranational judicial control, or both in terms of a horizontal overlapping of powers in the European multi-level system? Art. 15 ECHR still leaves unanswered questions to which the Strasbourg organs have responded over the years with a differentiated jurisprudence and with the granting of a certain margin of discretion. The book deals with these issues in the light of ECtHR case law and case studies on France, Turkey and Ukraine.

The Court of Justice of the EU and the Common European Asylum System: Entering the Third Phase of Harmonisation?

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 53-71
Author(s):  
Samuel Boutruche Zarevac
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Third Phase ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
Special Expertise ◽  
The Common ◽  
Fundamental Values ◽  
The Eu

Abstract ‘That assessment of the extent of the risk [of persecution] must, in all cases, be carried out with vigilance and care, since what are at issue are issues relating to the integrity of the person and to individual liberties, issues which relate to the fundamental values of the Union.’ The case law of the Court of Justice of the EU concerning the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is still limited. Nonetheless, even this limited case law already offers interesting insights into analysing the potential role of the Court of Justice of the EU in the development of the CEAS, and this jurisprudence is in any event likely to grow significantly, due to the fact that the provisions of the CEAS are the result of a political compromise and so lack clarity. This chapter examines the ruling delivered by the Court in the case of Elgafaji, which contains certain elements which address the interpretative difficulties raised by Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive, and goes on to consider, through a discussion of the recent ruling in Abdulla, the extent to which the Court’s interpretation of those provisions of the CEAS which replicate the wording of the 1951 Convention will influence the interpretation of this international instrument, and the difficulties presented in this context. The extent of this influence remains to be seen, but it is clear in any event that the Court of Justice is likely to play a major role in the development of the CEAS. One amendment which may prove necessary is the modification of the Court of Justice’s procedural rules such that it can take into account the views of third-party organisations with a special expertise in this field.

scholarly journals Case Report on C-411/10, N.S. and C-493/10, M.E. and Others, 21 December 2011

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Lieven
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Report ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The European Court of Justice clarified through this judgment the way in which the overloading of a Member States’ asylum system affects the EU arrangements for determining the Member State responsible for asylum applications lodged in the EU and thereby drastically reduced the possibility granted to Member States to transfer asylum applicants. The Member States now have an obligation to verify that no serious risk of violation of the Charter rights of the applicant exits in the receiving country before being allowed to transfer the person. The practical consequences of this ruling are still uncertain but further cooperation between Member States should be able to enhance the level of protection of human rights within the Common European Asylum System.

The Court of Justice of the EU and the Common European Asylum System: Entering the Third Phase of Harmonisation?

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 53-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Boutruche Zarevac
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Third Phase ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
Special Expertise ◽  
The Common ◽  
Fundamental Values ◽  
The Eu

Abstract‘That assessment of the extent of the risk [of persecution] must, in all cases, be carried out with vigilance and care, since what are at issue are issues relating to the integrity of the person and to individual liberties, issues which relate to the fundamental values of the Union.’The case law of the Court of Justice of the EU concerning the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is still limited. Nonetheless, even this limited case law already offers interesting insights into analysing the potential role of the Court of Justice of the EU in the development of the CEAS, and this jurisprudence is in any event likely to grow significantly, due to the fact that the provisions of the CEAS are the result of a political compromise and so lack clarity. This chapter examines the ruling delivered by the Court in the case of Elgafaji, which contains certain elements which address the interpretative difficulties raised by Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive, and goes on to consider, through a discussion of the recent ruling in Abdulla, the extent to which the Court’s interpretation of those provisions of the CEAS which replicate the wording of the 1951 Convention will influence the interpretation of this international instrument, and the difficulties presented in this context. The extent of this influence remains to be seen, but it is clear in any event that the Court of Justice is likely to play a major role in the development of the CEAS. One amendment which may prove necessary is the modification of the Court of Justice’s procedural rules such that it can take into account the views of third-party organisations with a special expertise in this field.

The Long Walk to Strasbourg: About the Insufficient Judicial Protection in Some Areas of the Common Foreign and Security Policy before the European Union’s Accession to the ECHR

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 393-414
Author(s):  
José M. Cortés-Martín
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Judicial Remedies ◽  
The Eu

Abstract It is likely that the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) objection in Opinion 2/13 regarding the absence of judicial remedies in certain Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) areas can hardly be accommodated in a future revised Accession Project to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This is basically due to obstacles to proceeding with reform of the EU Treaties or establishing an ECHR reservation clause. However, as a matter of fact, the exact dimension of this problem seems to be quite relative. First of all, this is because recent ECJ case-law is gradually eroding the Court’s lack of competence, in particular, after Rosneft. Next, this is because, in those cases where there is still an absence of effective judicial protection, national courts – as EU ordinary courts – could fill this gap. Finally, this gap could also be filled by creating accountability mechanisms in the area of human rights within the framework of Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions.

3. Sources of English Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Jones
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

This chapter discusses the sources of English law, legislation, custom, case law, and EU law. It includes detail of how an Act of Parliament is created, an explanation of delegated legislation, and how legislation is interpreted by the courts. In considering case law, the importance of judicial precedent and how the system of precedence functions is fully explained. The chapter also discusses the major institutions of the EU including the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The sources of EU law, treaties, regulations, directives, and decisions are outlined. The chapter discusses the 2016 referendum and the position of EU law in the UK during the negotiation period for the UK’s exit from the EU. Detail is given of the rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The UN Security Council, State Responsibility, and the European Court of Human Rights

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

The European Court of Human Rights is in the process of refining its conceptual tools for determining the responsibility of the States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) acting in execution of a Security Council resolution. Where the implementation of resolutions involving the use of force is concerned, the Court’s recent case law has shown a shift towards systematic acceptance of the extraterritorial scope of the ECHR. As to whether the conduct in issue should be attributed to the States Parties or to the UN, the Court now makes a clear distinction between operations authorized by the Security Council and UN peacekeeping operations. The implementation of UN economic sanctions will be addressed differently according to whether or not the respondent State is a member of the EU. The criterion of ‘equivalent protection’ is only applicable in the former scenario. And in any event, it needs to be applied cautiously on a case-by-case basis. As regards the enforcement of economic sanctions by non-EU Member States, the Court tends to interpret Security Council resolutions in a manner consistent with the obligations deriving from the ECHR. More generally, the Court’s approach is oriented towards systemic harmonization rather than towards normative conflict.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document