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.

scholarly journals Characteristics of Precedent: The Case Law of the European Court of Justice in Three Dimensions

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 1073-1098 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattias Derlén ◽  
Johan Lindholm
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
The One

AbstractThe case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is one of the most important sources of European Union law. However, case law's role in EU law is not uniform. By empirically studying how the Court uses its own case law as a source of law, we explore the correlation between, on the one hand, the characteristics of a CJEU case—type of action, actors involved, and area of law—and, on the other hand, the judgment's “embeddedness” in previous case law and value as a precedent in subsequent cases. Using this approach, we test, confirm, and debunk existing scholarship concerning the role of CJEU case law as a source of EU law. We offer the following conclusions: that CJEU case law cannot be treated as a single entity; that only a limited number of factors reliably affect a judgment's persuasive or precedential power; that the Court's use of its own case law as a source of law is particularly limited in successful infringement proceedings; that case law is particularly important in preliminary references—especially those concerning fundamental freedoms and competition law; and that initiating Member State and the number of observations affects the behavior of the Court.

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.

Freedom to conduct a business and EU labour law

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 172-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Giubboni
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Alternative Interpretation ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Social Europe

Critical-contextual analysis of case law of the European Court of Justice on employers’ contractual freedom – Fundamental right to be immunised against the alleged disproportional protection enjoyed by employees – Progressive ideological overthrow of the original constitutional assumptions of the founding treaties – Prominent example of ‘displacement of social Europe’ – Court of Justice’s case law on the relationship between freedom to conduct a business and labour law – Neoliberal understanding of the freedom of enterprise – Alternative interpretation of Article 16 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Patient Mobility in Times of Austerity: A Legal and Policy Analysis of the Petru Case

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Frischhut ◽  
Nick Fahy
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Patient Mobility ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Potential Impact ◽  
The Impact

The case-law of the Court of Justice (ecj ) on patient mobility was recently challenged by a ruling that a patient could go to Germany for treatment when facilities in Romanian hospitals were inadequate. Given the reported impact of austerity measures in the field of health care this raises the question; what is the impact of the ecj ’s ruling on how Member States can manage expenditure and limit outflows of patients and how should such measures be legally evaluated? The objective of this article is to analyse potential impact on health systems in the context of increasing pressure on public financing for health. While the ecj mainly referred to the requirement of treatment in due time, we also analyse possible austerity reductions of the basket of care against the background of eu law (i.e., ecj case-law, patient mobility directive, Charter of Fundamental rights and social security regulation).

CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS: IV. CITIZENSHIP AND HUMAN RIGHTS

2004 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 493-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erika Szyszczak
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
Court Of First Instance

Citizenship and human rights continue to play an important role in the evolution of Community law. Both sets of principles have appeared in the case law of the European Courts and in the creation of a Constitutional document for Europe. Part II of the draft Constitution incorporates the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union. Additionally, the first report from the independent network of experts in fundamental human rights details the various international human rights obligations which the Member States are subject to, analysing Member State policy in a number of areas in the light of the international obligations.1Paradoxically, at a time when greater emphasis is being paid to the constitutional recognition of human rights there are indications of divisions between some of the Advocates General, the Court of First Instance and the European Court of Justice (the Court) on the constitutional role of fundamental rights in relation to access to justice.

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.

The Domestic Reach of General Principles of Law: First City Trading Revisited

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 199-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nick Grief
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Academic Evaluation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
General Principles Of Law

This is a critical analysis—in the light of the Lisbon Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and recent European Court of Justice (ECJ) case law—of the judgment in R v MAFF, ex p First City Trading, or at least of that part of the judgment concerning the domestic reach of general principles of law. Laws J held that the legal status of the general principles ‘made’ by the ECJ is inferior to that of the principles enshrined in the Treaty, and that therefore the domestic reach of the former is narrower than that of the latter. In the years since the judgment was delivered, however, it does not appear to have been considered by the ECJ and there seems to have been little academic evaluation of its cogency and implications. One commentator considered that the distinction drawn by the judge seemed correct. Another was critical, asserting that ‘the distinction between principles based on Treaty provisions and general principles of law cannot be deduced from the case law of the Court of Justice’. The possible entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, which recognises that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (and thus presumably the rights, freedoms and principles within it) has ‘the same legal value as the Treaties’, makes it appropriate to revisit the judgment and consider whether Laws J’s approach was correct.

The Impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Georgian Legal System

2020 ◽  
pp. 241-262
Author(s):  
Gaga Gabrichidze
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Competition Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Association Agreement ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
System P ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

This chapter scrutinizes perception of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) by the Georgian courts and the Georgian Competition Agency. With the conclusion of the Association Agreement between the EU and Georgia in 2014, the Georgian legal system undoubtedly became more closely connected with EU law. Hence, approximation commitments under the Association Agreement made the case law of the CJEU of much more relevance for the Georgian courts and administrative authorities. However, in the wake of intensification of EU–Georgia relations, the impact of CJEU case law can be identified even in the time before conclusion of the Association Agreement. Analysis shows that several factors play a role with regard to the extent and frequency of mentioning CJEU case law in the decisions of the Georgian courts and Competition Agency. Judges refer to case law of the CJEU with the aim of either strengthening their own arguments or using it as a source of interpretation. Taking into consideration the ‘European’ roots of Georgia’s competition policy, the Competition Agency regards the case law of the CJEU as having a very important interpretative value for closing ‘gaps’ in the law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document