Bosphorus – European Court of Human Rights

2006 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 443-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Peers
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Early Years ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The One

The position of human rights within the European Union legal order has been an issue since the early years of the original European Economic Community. For many years, the development of human rights as general principles of Community law was characterized by dialogue and debate between the Communities' Court of Justice on the one hand, and certain national constitutional courts on the other, as regards the protection of human rights recognized in national constitutions by the Community legal order. But in recent years, there has been a parallel dialogue between the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, as regards the Community legal order's protection of the rights guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

The European Legal Order

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard Stirn
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Eu

Chapter 3 shows that the confluence of the law of the European Union and of the European Convention on Human Rights is a European legal order worthy of the name. It outlines the law of the European Union after the Lisbon Treaty, setting out its principles and the ways in which competences are shared in the EU post Lisbon, between the European Council, the Council, the Commission, the European Parliament, and the Court of Justice of the European Union. The chapter further sets out the outline of the system of rules of the European Union. Then the chapter turns to the characteristics of what has been termed a Europe of human rights, and how the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), in conjunction with domestic courts, police the law of the European Convention on Human Rights. Finally, the chapter brings together the law of the European Union and the ECHR.

Human Rights: The Best is Yet to Come

2004 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rick Lawson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
To Come ◽  
The Eu

Now that the EU Constitution has been adopted, one might be inclined to think that the debate on the position of human rights in the legal order of the European Union has come to an end. For more than 25 years academics and politicians have discussed the desirability of EC/EU accession to the European Convention of Human Rights and have argued for or against a separate bill of fundamental rights. That is all over now: Article I-7 of the Constitution provides for Union accession to the European Convention, whereas part II incorporates the Charter of Fundamental Rights.It would seem, therefore, that a solid framework for the protection of human rights in the EU legal order has been put in place. The rest will be a matter of implementation: taking fundamental rights into account when drafting and executing European legislation; invoking these rights before the Court of Justice; lodging complaints with the European Court of Human Rights when the EU institutions, despite everything, failed to secure these rights. All very important, albeit that some may find the daily application of human rights not as sexy as the large constitutional questions of the past.So is this the ‘end of history’ for human rights? Quite the opposite. The best is yet to come!

scholarly journals IMPLEMENTATION OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES IN HUMAN RIGHTS TO HEALTHCARE

2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (7) ◽  
pp. 1539-1544
Author(s):  
Volodymyr V. Marchenko ◽  
Inna I. Kilimnik ◽  
Alla V. Dombrovska
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Digital Technologies ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Structural Method ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Blockchain Technology ◽  
European Court ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

The aim: The aim of the study is to examine the blockchain technology in the field of healthcare, to analyze the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding respect for private and family life, home and correspondence, to analyze the key positions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter – ECHR) in the field of human rights to privacy, to analyze the European Union (hereinafter – EU) secondary legislation regarding the supply of medicines, prospects for the blockchain usage in order to protect human rights to privacy and improve the quality of medicines. Materials and methods: Scientific works that are devoted to the outspread of digital technologies in healthcare, the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, the ECHR’s practice on the protection of human rights to privacy, the provisions of the EU secondary legislation that regulate the supply of medicines are studied. The methodology of this article is based on comparative and legal analysis techniques and includes system-structural method, method of generalization, method of analysis and synthesis as well. Conclusions: The blockchain technology in medicine and pharmacology will increase the level of protection of human rights to healthcare quality.

scholarly journals Refl ections on the Principle of Equal Treatment in EU Law and the Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-23
Author(s):  
Marija Daka
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Complex Approach

The paper presents some of the most relevant aspects of European nondiscrimination law established th rough European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights, looking also at the evolution of the norms and milestones of case-law on equal treatment within the two systems. The paper gives an overview of the non-discrimination concept as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union and by the European Court of Human Rights. We examine the similar elements but also give insight into conceptual differences between the two human rights regimes when dealing with equal treatment. The differences mainly stem from the more complex approach taken by EU law although, based on analysed norms, cases, and provisions, the aspects of equal treatment in EU law are largely consistent with the practice of the ECtHR. Lastly, the paper briefl y places the European non-discrimination law within the multi-layered human rights system, giving some food for thought for the future potential this concept brings.

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.

The Past, Present and Future of the Ne Bis In Idem Dialogue between the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights: The Cases of Menci, Garlsson and Di Puma

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-84
Author(s):  
Max Vetzo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Market Abuse ◽  
The Past ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem

The cases of Menci (C-524/15), Garlsson (C-537/16) and Di Puma (C-596/16 and C-597/16) deal with the duplication of criminal and punitive administrative proceedings for the same conduct in the area of VAT and market abuse. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that this duplication of proceedings constitutes a limitation of the ne bis in idem principle of Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Charter). This infringement is only justified if the requirements of the limitation clause of Article 52(1) of the Charter are met. The judgments were highly anticipated as they constitute the response of the CJEU to the judgment in A and B v Norway delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in which the ECtHR lowered the level of protection afforded by the ne bis in idem principle of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention of Human Rights (A4P7 ECHR). While there are differences between the approaches taken by both courts, it appears that the reasoning of the CJEU in the judgments largely mirrors that of the ECtHR in A and B v Norway. This article frames the judgments in terms of the dialogue between the CJEU and ECtHR on the ne bis in idem principle. It does so chronologically, by focusing on the past, present and future of the ne bis in idem dialogue between both European courts.

Some decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of the European Union con cerning the right of asylum

10.12737/5251 ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-74
Author(s):  
Габриэлла Белова ◽  
Gabriela Belova ◽  
Мария Хаджипетрова-Лачова ◽  
Maria Hadzhipetrova-Lachova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Protective Mechanisms ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The authors analyze certain cases considered in recent years by the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of European Union in Luxembourg and associated with providing of asylum to the third country nationals. In individual EU member states there are huge differences in the procedures and protective mechanisms for asylum seekers in their access to work, as well as in the use of mechanism of forced detention. Due to accession of the EU to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the EU should comply the standards set by the Council of Europe. The authors analyze the new approach of the Strasbourg Court in decision MSS v. Belgium and Greece unlike other "Dublin" cases. They also consider certain new judgements of the Court of European Union in Luxembourg, some of which were accepted in order of urgent prejudicial production.

scholarly journals Mechanizm współpozwania w świetle przystąpienia Unii Europejskiej do Konwencji o ochronie praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 63-75
Author(s):  
Anna Moskal
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Member State ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Joint Liability ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
European System ◽  
The Eu

The co-respondent mechanism in the view of accession of the European Union to the European Convention of Human RightsFor the past seventy years there have been discussions and activities on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. The ratio of the Union’s accession to the Convention is a need to harmonize the European system of protection of individual rights. There are numerous problems and obstacles to achieve this goal created by the specific, supra-national character of the Union sui generis. It requires the introduction of unique mechanisms and procedures that would allow an international organization such as the EU to become a party to the Convention. One such procedure is provided in art. 3 of the draft agreement, the co-respondent mechanism of the European Union and the Member State in proceedings under the European Court of Human Rights. The purpose of the article is to present the allegations of the Court of Justice, assess their validity and indicate possible future solutions regarding the co-respondent mechanism. After analyzing the European Commission’s request for an opinion on the compliance of the draft agreement with community law, the CJEU considered the draft as incompatible with EU law and listed ten issues that prevented the Union from joining the Convention in the proposed form. Among them, as many as three points refer to the corresponding mechanism and concern in particular the decision on the validity of the conclusions of the Union or a Member State by the Strasbourg Court, accepting joint liability and deciding on the division of responsibility between the Union and the Member State. In the article dogmatic method was used in order to analyze three aforementioned points. Due to the provision of art. 218 par. 11 p. 2 TFEU, the Commission is bound by the opinion of the Court of Justice, and that the presented draft agreement cannot constitute an international agreement allowing for the accession of the Union to the Convention in the proposed form.

scholarly journals Characteristics of an Effective Child Protection System in the European and International Contexts

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariëlle R. Bruning ◽  
Jaap E. Doek
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Child Protection ◽  
Protection System ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Rights Of The Child ◽  
European Court ◽  
Core Elements ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Main Components

AbstractIn the European context, an understanding that States are responsible for an effective child protection system is well established. Further, all 47 members of the CoE have adopted the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and all European countries have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Thus, States have come to understand their responsibility in terms of the child’s right to protection. The aim of this article is to explicate core elements of an effective child protection system within a child’s rights framework. This aim is accomplished by highlighting and providing analysis of the principles set forth in the CRC and further elaborated in General Comment No. 13 (2011) and by the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the main components of policies and other relevant documents of the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe (CoE), and caselaw from the European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR) and then presenting recommendations for an effective State-run child protection system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document