Fundamental Rights in the EU Institutional Landscape

Author(s):  
Jan Wouters ◽  
Michal Ovádek

This chapter examines the roles of the various institutional actors in the EU fundamental rights architecture. The European Commission is the most well-known supranational institution of the EU. It acts as the central pillar of the EU system with responsibilities spanning legislative proposals and enforcement of EU law, among others. As such, the Commission has an important role in ensuring that EU and implementing national law is consistent with fundamental rights. The conduct of the Commission itself is equally subject to fundamental rights requirements which is of additional significance due to its external representation role in which the Commission should also promote human rights. The other institutional actors include the European Parliament; the Council of the European Union; the Court of Justice (CJEU); the European External Action Service (EEAS) and EU Special Representative (EUSR) for Human Rights; the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA); the National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs); the national equality bodies (NEBs) and national data protection authorities (NDPAs); and the European Ombudsman. Although the Member States are not EU institutions or bodies, their importance in the EU system overall and for the protection of fundamental rights in particular cannot be overlooked.

Author(s):  
R Amy Elman ◽  

Deciphering the European Union’s (EU) commitment to countering violence against women is challenging. To date, much of its response has been rhetorical. This article opens with a brief consideration of the EU’s first few initiatives to counter violence against women before turning to the polity’s enthusiastic endorsement of the Council of Europe’s 2011 Istanbul Convention, which defines such violence as a human rights violation. Not least, it offers a critical analysis of the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency’s 2014 survey on violence against women, the world’s largest international survey of its kind. That inquiry involved 42,000 in-person interviews with a representative sample of approximately 1,500 women (aged 18-74) across all of the EU’s then 28 Member States. After examining the Agency’s survey and its subsequent report in the context of those efforts that preceded it, the article suggests the EU’s rhetoric and related programs for women may conceal the more controversial manifestations of the violence directed at them. For example, the Agency’s survey excluded female genital mutilation from the rubric of violence against women. One finds a similar reluctance on the part of the Agency and other institutional actors across the EU to address the eroticized commodification of violence in prostitution and pornography that pervade the polity’s common market. Despite the EU’s occasional pronouncements to the contrary, it appears violence against women is a human rights violation that the polity deliberately circumscribes and perfunctorily condemns.


Author(s):  
R Amy Elman ◽  

Deciphering the European Union’s (EU) commitment to countering violence against women is challenging. To date, much of its response has been rhetorical. This article opens with a brief consideration of the EU’s first few initiatives to counter violence against women before turning to the polity’s enthusiastic endorsement of the Council of Europe’s 2011 Istanbul Convention, which defines such violence as a human rights violation. Not least, it offers a critical analysis of the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency’s 2014 survey on violence against women, the world’s largest international survey of its kind. That inquiry involved 42,000 in-person interviews with a representative sample of approximately 1,500 women (aged 18-74) across all of the EU’s then 28 Member States. After examining the Agency’s survey and its subsequent report in the context of those efforts that preceded it, the article suggests the EU’s rhetoric and related programs for women may conceal the more controversial manifestations of the violence directed at them. For example, the Agency’s survey excluded female genital mutilation from the rubric of violence against women. One finds a similar reluctance on the part of the Agency and other institutional actors across the EU to address the eroticized commodification of violence in prostitution and pornography that pervade the polity’s common market. Despite the EU’s occasional pronouncements to the contrary, it appears violence against women is a human rights violation that the polity deliberately circumscribes and perfunctorily condemns.


Author(s):  
Monika Mayrhofer

The EU is neither a state nor a ‘normal’ international organisation, but has a unique institutional structure that is sometimes also referred to as a ‘sui generis’ institutional framework. The institutions of the EU have a pivotal role concerning EU human rights policies. This chapter will provide an analysis of how human rights competences are distributed among EU institutions. It will discuss the institutional architecture of human rights in the EU by analysing the European Council, the Council of the European Union and its human rights-related Working Parties, the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European External Action Service and the Special Representative on Human Rights, the Fundamental Rights Agency, and the European Ombudsman. The analysis will be followed by a summary of opportunities and challenges, a presentation of areas for improvements and recommendations, and a brief conclusion.


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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 85-92
Author(s):  
Gábor Kemény ◽  
Michal Vít

The aim of the paper is to introduce the legal misfits between the standards of human rights as stated by the European Union and the Council of Europe and practical day to day experience related to EU member states. For this purpose, the article focuses on political and legal assessment of the so-called pushbacks at the Greek-Turkish external border and introduces the influencing factors, such as the various interpretation of the legislation, differences in the organisational structure and values. Authors concluded that these factors are endangering the fulfilment of the fundamental rights and the efficiency of the border protection thus the security of the EU and its member states.


With the Treaty of Lisbon, the profile of human rights issues has greatly risen in relation to European Union (EU) policies, whether internal or external. The EU has made the commitment to ensure that all its actions are compliant with human rights, and to seek to promote them. Yet, the Union’s commitment has come under close scrutiny, not only for its groundbreaking character, but also because recent events have put it to the test. The EU has been faced with a number of crises such as the financial-economic crisis and the imposition of austerity measures, the migration crisis, and terrorist attacks. At the same time, the EU has made significant steps to implement its human rights commitment, such as through the binding character of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the adoption of the Strategic Framework and Action Plan on human rights and democracy, and the adoption of human rights country strategies for a large number of third countries. This volume takes stock of these developments. It comprehensively discusses the conceptualisation and operationalisation of the EU’s commitment to human rights throughout its actions, legislative activities, policies, and relationships, and critically assesses them.


Author(s):  
Jan Wouters ◽  
Anna-Luise Chané ◽  
Manfred Nowak

Over the past decades, the European Union (EU or Union) has undergone a remarkable transformation—from a primarily economic integration project whose founding treaties were completely silent on human rights, to a political union of values that puts human rights front and centre. The Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force one decade ago, on 1 December 2009, is widely regarded as the high point of the Union’s journey in that direction. Not only did the Treaty recognise human rights as one of the EU’s founding values, as the guiding principles and objectives of all EU external action, it also gave the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights the same legal value as the Treaties and obliged the Union to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)....


2020 ◽  
pp. 243-282
Author(s):  
Eleanor Spaventa

This chapter examines fundamental rights in the EU. It begins by analysing the historical background and the development of the case law on fundamental rights. It then examines the main Treaty provisions relating to fundamental rights protection, before turning to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Finally, it looks at the relationship between the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including the extent to which the European Court of Human Rights agrees to scrutinize EU acts. It also considers the plan for the EU to accede to the ECHR.


2011 ◽  
Vol 105 (4) ◽  
pp. 649-693 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gráinne de Búrca

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.


Laws ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 32
Author(s):  
Riaan Eksteen

Central to EU law and policies is the protection of human rights. For the European Union (EU), these rights are sacrosanct. Over the years, more substance to the protection of fundamental rights emerged. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is notably entrusted with the protection of human rights and has always deemed it imperative that fundamental rights must be protected within the scope of EU law. The Court has always relied on strong European traditions and values and is guided by the inalienable principle of the rule of law. In the human rights record of the EU, the Kadi cases occupy a special place. The scope of the application of Article 46 is limited, and the application of the Charter is still not used to its full potential, and too few citizens are even aware of it. The Commission intends to present a strategy that would improve the use and awareness of the Charter. By the middle of 2020, the UK’s withdrawal from the EU had become acrimonious. One issue that still begs the conclusion is the status of and protection available to EU citizens living in the UK beyond 31 December 2020. These basic rights of its citizens are not negotiable for the EU.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document