The ‘Equivalent Protection Test’: From European Union to United Nations, from Solange II to Solange I

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 226-262
Author(s):  
Sébastien Platon

Human rights – European Convention on Human Rights – European Union – United Nations – Smart sanctions – Constitutional law – French law – German law – Conflicts between legal systems – Equivalent protection – Solange

Author(s):  
José Fernando Lousada Arochena

Resumen. El estudio analiza las coincidencias y las discrepancias existentes entre la jurisprudencia del TEDH y del TJUE en relación con dos cuestiones concretas en las cuales está implicada la igualdad de género: la conciliación masculina y la discriminación múltiple. La existencia de las discrepancias obedece a las diferentes características de los ordenamientos jurídicos que cada tribunal debe aplicar. El Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos es un texto sobre derechos humanos y habilita ampliamente al TEDH para su aplicación. Mientras que el Derecho de la Unión Europea, aunque tiene unos objetivos de integración más ambiciosos que el CEDH, presenta carencias en materia de derechos humanos, lo que limita en no pocas ocasiones la actuación del TJUE. La solución estaría en la deseable integración de ambos ordenamientos jurídicos a través de la adhesión de la Unión Europea al CEDH.Palabras clave: igualdad de género, TEDH, TJUE.Abstract. The study analyzes the coincidences and discrepancies between the jurisprudence of the ECHR and the CJEU in relation to two specific issues in which gender equality is involved: male conciliation and multiple discrimination. The existence of the discrepancies is due to the different characteristics of the legal systems that each court must apply. The European Convention on Human Rights is a text on human rights and enables the ECHR to apply it broadly. While the European Union Law, although it has more ambitious integration objectives than the ECHR, it has many lacks about human rights, which limits the CJEU’s decissions on many occasions. The solution would be the desirable integration of both legal systems through the accession of the European Union to the ECHR.Keywords: gender equality, ECHR, CJEU.


ICL Journal ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-41
Author(s):  
Maurizio Arcari ◽  
Stefania Ninatti

Abstract Constitutionalization is a peculiar process which characterizes the whole fabric of modern international law. It may however display different levels of evolution and different implications when distinct legal sub-systems are considered: this appears to be especially true at the European level, in particular in the context of the European Union law and of the European Convention on Human Rights. This article aims at unveiling the key elements of the constitutionalization process as developed by the judges sitting in Luxembourg and Strasbourg. In their relevant case law, both the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have identified the core concepts and elements lying behind the constitutionalization of their respective legal systems. The analysis of the ECJ and ECtHR case law will be divided into two different parts dealing with the internal dimension from one side, and external one from the other side. While presenting nuances and implications that are linked to the diverse degree of integration of the two legal systems, it may be submitted that the core elements of constitutionalization depicted by the Luxembourg and Strasbourg judges reveal some common patterns.


2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut

The core function of the judiciary is the administration of justice through delivering judgments and other decisions. The crucial role for its acceptance and legitimization by not only lawyers, but also individulas (parties) and the hole society plays judicial reasoning. It should reflect on judge’s independence within the exercise of his office and show also judicial self-restraint or activism. The axiology and the standards of proper judicial reasoning are anchored both in constitutional and supranational law and case-law. Polish Constitutional Tribunal derives a duty to give reasoning from the right to a fair trial – right to be heard and bring own submissions before the court (Article 45 § 1 of the Constitution), the right to appeal against judgments and decisions made at first stage (Article 78), the rule of two stages of the court proceedings (Article 176) and rule of law clause (Article 2), that comprises inter alia right to due process of law and the rule of legitimate expactation / the protection of trust (Vertrauensschutz). European Court of Human Rights derives this duty to give reasons from the guarantees of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of European Convention of Human Rights. In its case-law the ECtHR, taking into account the margin of appreciation concept, formulated a number of positive and negative requirements, that should be met in case of proper reasoning. The obligation for courts to give sufficient reasons for their decisions is also anchored in European Union law. European Court of Justice derives this duty from the right to fair trial enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Standards of the courts reasoning developed by Polish constitutional court an the European courts (ECJ and ECtHR) are in fact convergent and coherent. National judges should take them into consideration in every case, to legitimize its outcome and enhance justice delivery.


2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442199593
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Schomburg ◽  
Anna Oehmichen ◽  
Katrin Kayß

As human rights have increasingly gained importance at the European Union level, this article examines the remaining scope of human rights protection under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. While some international human rights instruments remain applicable, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union did not become part of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). The consequences, especially the inapplicability of the internationalised ne bis in idem principle, are analysed. Furthermore, the conditionality of the TCA in general as well as the specific conditionality for judicial cooperation in criminal matters are discussed. In this context, the risk that cooperation may cease at any moment if any Member State or the UK leave the European Convention of Human Rights is highlighted. Lastly, the authors raise the problem of the lack of judicial review, as the Court of Justice of the European Union is no longer competent.


2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 369-404
Author(s):  
Silvia Borelli

The undeniable impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on the legal systems – and the wider society – of Member States of the Council of Europe would not have been possible without its unique monitoring system, centred around the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The present article assesses the extent to which the European Court's judgments that have found violations of the procedural obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention to investigate unlawful killings, disappearances, acts of torture or other ill-treatment have, in fact, led to an improvement in the capability of the domestic legal systems of states parties to ensure accountability for such abuses. On the basis of four case studies, it is concluded that the European Court's judgments, coupled with the supervisory powers of the Committee of Ministers, have the potential to make a very great impact on the capability of domestic legal systems to deal with gross violations of fundamental human rights, and have led to clear and positive changes within the domestic legal systems of respondent states. Nevertheless, this is by no means always the case, and it is suggested that, in order for the Convention system to achieve its full potential in the most politically charged cases, the European Court should adopt a more proactive approach to its remedial powers by ordering specific remedial measures, to include in particular the opening or reopening of investigations.


2021 ◽  
Vol 194 ◽  
pp. 531-680

531Human rights — Rights of women in Northern Ireland — Pregnant women and girls — Autonomy and bodily integrity — Right to respect for private and family life — Rights of persons with disabilities — Right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Abortion law in Northern Ireland — Prohibition on abortion in cases of serious malformation of foetus, rape and incest — Balancing of rights — Whether moral and political issues relevant — Role of courts and Parliament — Whether abortion law incompatible with Articles 3 and 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether declaration of incompatibility should be madeHuman rights — Right to respect for private and family life — Qualified right — Abortion law in Northern Ireland — Prohibition on abortion in cases of serious malformation of foetus, rape and incest — Interference with right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether interference justified — Whether interference prescribed by law — Whether having legitimate aim — Whether necessary in democratic society — Whether proportionate — In case of fatal foetal abnormality — In case of rape — In case of incest — In case of serious foetal abnormality — Balancing of rights — European Court of Human Rights — Margin of appreciation accorded to United Kingdom represented by Northern Ireland Assembly — Whether legislative situation in Northern Ireland tenable — Role of legislature and courts — Whether Northern Ireland abortion law incompatible with Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether declaration of incompatibility should be madeHuman rights — Rights of persons with disabilities — Treaties — United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006 — Northern Ireland abortion law prohibiting abortion in cases of serious malformation of the foetus — Foetus having potential to develop into child with disability in cases of serious foetal abnormality — Value of life with and without disability — Whether life having equal worth — United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recommending States amend abortion laws so as to value equally the life of a person with disabilities — Whether Northern Ireland abortion law disproportionate in cases of serious foetal abnormality — Whether abortion law in Northern Ireland incompatible with Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether declaration of incompatibility should be made532Human rights — Right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Rights of girls and women in Northern Ireland pregnant with foetuses with fatal abnormality or due to rape or incest — Article 3 absolute right — Effect on victim — Whether mothers continuing against their will with fatal foetal abnormality pregnancies or pregnancies due to rape or incest, or having to travel to England for an abortion, likely to suffer inhuman and degrading treatment — Whether any ill-treatment under Article 3 reaching minimum level of severity — Obligations owed by the State under Article 3 of European Convention — Vulnerability of women — Personal autonomy — Whether abortion law in Northern Ireland incompatible with Article 3 of European Convention — Whether declaration of incompatibility should be madeRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Implementation — Interpretation — Effect in domestic law — International treaties to which United Kingdom a party — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Human Rights Act 1998 — United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979 — United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006 — Whether moral and political issues relevant — Balancing of rights — Northern Ireland abortion law interfering with right under Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether interference justified — Whether prescribed by law — Whether having legitimate aim — Whether necessary in democratic society — Whether proportionate — Relevance of moral and political views — Role of courts and Parliament in abortion debate — Whether pregnant women and girls subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment — Whether reaching minimum level of severity for breach of Article 3 of European Convention — Whether Northern Ireland abortion law incompatible with Articles 3 and 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 Convention — Whether declaration of incompatibility should be madeRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Effect in domestic law — Abortion law in Northern Ireland — Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 — Section 25(1) of the Criminal Justice Act (NI) 1945 — Right to respect for private and family life — Right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Whether abortion law in 533Northern Ireland incompatible with Article 8 of European Convention — Balancing of rights — Whether abortion law justified — Whether moral and political values relevant — Margin of appreciation accorded to States by European Court of Human Rights — Whether abortion law in Northern Ireland incompatible with Articles 3 and 8 of European Convention — Whether declaration of incompatibility should be madeTreaties — Interpretation — Implementation — Application — Effect in domestic law — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Interpreting European Convention in light of other international treaties to which United Kingdom a party — United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979 — United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006 — Relevance of unincorporated international treaties when applying European Convention via Human Rights Act 1998 — The law of the United Kingdom


Author(s):  
Nussberger Angelika

This chapter assesses the relationship between the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and domestic and international legal systems. With the ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Member States accept to be bound by final judgments of the Court and to implement them in their domestic legal systems. The Convention system does not make any difference as to the set-up of the national legal system or to the hierarchical position accorded to the Convention in national law. This is in line with a purist international law perspective, summarized in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention of the Law on Treaties: ‘A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.’ However, from the constitutional law perspective of the Member States, the situation is much more multi-faceted and complex. While it is generally accepted that the Court's judgments are binding and have to be implemented, the relationship between the Convention and the national constitutions as well as between their respective guardians, the Court on the one hand and national constitutional or supreme courts on the other hand, is not seen as one-way and hierarchical, but nuanced and differentiated. Implementation of judgments is accepted to be a duty, but not necessarily without exceptions. The chapter then considers the relationship between the ECtHR and the European Court of Justice (ECJ).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document