The agreement terminating intra-EU BITs: are its provisions on ‘New’ and ‘Pending’ Arbitration Proceedings compatible with investors’ fundamental rights?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gordon Nardell QC ◽  
Laura Rees-Evans
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaties ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
The Status ◽  
Investment Treaties

Abstract On 5 May 2020, 23 Member States of the EU signed a plurilateral treaty with the purpose of terminating the nearly 130 Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) between them (the so-called ‘intra-EU BITs’) and the 11 sunset clauses that continue in effect in intra-EU BITs that have already been terminated. The treaty, entitled the ‘Agreement for the Termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties Between the Member States of the European Union’, marks the beginning of the next—but by no means the final—chapter in the controversy over the status of intra-EU BITs. In this article, we examine one of the many important legal questions raised by the Agreement; namely, whether its attempt to undercut arbitrations commenced well before the Agreement came into force, including those resulting in awards rendered before the Achmea judgment, is compatible with investors’ rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. We argue that by purporting to deprive investors of the fruits of valid claims in this way, the Agreement infringes Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR (‘A1P1’) and may also breach the rights of access to justice and a fair hearing under Article 6(1) (and their equivalents in the Charter).

The Legal Abyss of Discretion in the Resettlement of Refugees

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-85
Author(s):  
Tom de Boer ◽  
Marjoleine Zieck
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Burden Sharing ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
International Refugee Law

Abstract The world is experiencing its largest refugee crisis since the Second World War, and more than ever before, the lack of an equitable burden-sharing mechanism is making itself felt: the world’s poorest States are hosting most of the refugees. The durable solution of resettlement of refugees is, in theory, the principal means of securing responsibility sharing within the framework of international refugee law. In practice, this cannot be realized since fewer than 1 per cent of the world’s refugees can be resettled annually due to the small number of available resettlement places. However, initiatives are being developed to increase the number of States that offer resettlement places to refugees and hence the number of available resettlement places. Europe, too, traditionally lagging well behind in terms of the number of resettlement places it offers, is endeavouring to contribute more places. It must nonetheless be noted that Europe’s increasing support for resettlement is paired with a policy of extraterritorialization of asylum claims and minimization of ‘spontaneous’ refugee arrivals. If Europe indeed aims to replace the regular asylum system with controlled refugee resettlement, this will raise issues of access to asylum. While the current Common European Asylum System contains a plethora of procedural and substantive rights for asylum seekers, resettlement – due to its essentially discretionary nature – appears to take place in a legal void, that is, it appears to suffer from arbitrariness in the selection of refugees and a lack of procedural rights and legal remedies for the refugees involved in the resettlement process. The question is whether this is also the case with the European Union (EU) resettlement proposals and, if so, whether this can be sustained from a legal point of view. This article reviews these proposals, along with the current practice of refugee selection by EU Member States, and analyses them from a refugee rights perspective. It examines whether EU initiatives affect the discretionary nature of resettlement, and specifically analyses whether the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union apply to the resettlement procedures of EU Member States and, if so, what rights could be invoked by the refugees involved under those instruments.

The Road not Taken: The European Union as a Global Human Rights Actor

2011 ◽  
Vol 105 (4) ◽  
pp. 649-693 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Road ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Face ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

For many, the enactment of the European Union’s Treaty of Lisbon, with its range of significant human rights provisions, marks the EU’s coming of age as a human rights actor. The Lisbon Treaty inaugurated the legally binding character of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EU Charter), enshrined a commitment to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and, in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), identified human rights as a foundational value. These changes have already drawn comment as developments that “will change the face of the Union fundamentally,” that take the protection of rights in the EU “to a new level,” and that indicate that “the arguments for improving the status of human rights in EU law… have finally been heard. There is general agreement, in other words, that the EU has reached the high point of its engagement with human rights.

Human rights and the rule of law in judicial cooperation in criminal matters under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442199593
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Schomburg ◽  
Anna Oehmichen ◽  
Katrin Kayß
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cooperation Agreement ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

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.

The Right to Healthcare in the Common European Asylum System

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-156
Author(s):  
Marco Inglese
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Undocumented Migrants ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
The Common ◽  
Interpretative Approach ◽  
The Right

Abstract This article seeks to ascertain the role of healthcare in the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). The article is structured as follows. First, it outlines the international conceptualisation of healthcare in the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the European Social Charter (ESC) before delving into the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Second, focusing on the European Union (EU), it analyses the role of Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) in order to verify its impact on the development of the CEAS. Third, and in conclusion, it will argue that the identification of the role of healthcare in the CEAS should be understood in light of the Charter’s scope of application. This interpretative approach will be beneficial for asylum seekers and undocumented migrants, as well as for the Member States (MSs).

scholarly journals Are traditional minority languages a bench marking for the rights of migrant languages in the European Union?

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 40-60
Author(s):  
Christopher Houtkamp ◽  
László Marácz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Linguistic Diversity ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Minority Languages ◽  
Language Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Linguistic Rights ◽  
The Status ◽  
The One

In this paper a normative position will be defended. We will argue that minimal territorial minority language rights formulated in terms of the personality principle referring to traditional minority languages granted in the framework of the European Union (EU) are a benchmark for non-territorial linguistic rights. Although territorial minority languages should be granted collective rights this is in large parts of Europe not the case. Especially in the Central and Eastern European Member States language rights granted to territorial languages are assigned on the basis of personal language rights. Our argumentation will be elaborated on the basis of a comparative approach discussing the status of a traditional territorial language in Romania, more in particular Hungarian spoken in the Szeklerland area with the one of migrant languages in the Netherlands, more in particular Turkish. In accordance with the language hierarchy implying that territorial languages have a higher status than non-territorial languages both in the EUs and Member States’ language regimes nonterritorial linguistic rights will be realized as personal rights in the first place. Hence, the use of non-territorial minority languages is conditioned much as the use of territorial minority languages in the national Member States. So, the best possible scenario for mobile minority languages is to be recognized as a personal right and receive full support from the states where they are spoken. It is true that learning the host language would make inclusion of migrant language speakers into the host society smoother and securing a better position on the labour market. This should however be done without striving for full assimilation of the speakers of migrant languages for this would violate the linguistic rights of migrants to speak and cultivate one’s own heritage language, violate the EUs linguistic diversity policy, and is against the advantages provided by linguistic capital in the sense of BOURDIEU (1991).

9. European Union law and institutions

2021 ◽  
pp. 124-141
Author(s):  
Colin Faragher
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Cooperation Agreement ◽  
The Status ◽  
Fundamental Rights And Freedoms ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the Treaty framework and sources of EU law as well as the institutions of the EU. It covers the legal background to the UK’s departure from the EU, the legal process through which the UK left the EU, the key provisions of the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (2020), and the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. This chapter also discusses the effect of the UK’s departure from the EU on the status of the sources of EU law and the effect of leaving the EU on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms as well as failure to transpose a Directive into national law and the effect of leaving the EU on the Francovich principle.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document