Court of Justice of the eu Rules Collective and Inaccessible Electrical Metres Discriminate against Roma: chez Razpredelenie Bulgaria ad v. Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia (C-83/14)

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claude Cahn
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Racial Discrimination ◽  
Significant Contribution ◽  
Ethnic Origin ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Indirect Discrimination ◽  
Current Article ◽  
The Eu

The judgment of 16 July 2015 is ecj’s first substantive ruling in a case concerning racial discrimination against Roma. This is noteworthy, given the centrality of Roma to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the area of discrimination (on the European Court of Human Rights, Roma and racial discrimination, see C. Cahn (2015), ‘Triple Helix: The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, Roma and Racial Discrimination’, in: Claude Cahn, Human Rights, State Sovereignty and Medical Ethics, Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, pp. 106–148.). The ecj ruling in the chez case is important for a number of reasons, including for recognizing that the ban on discrimination by association applies also to cases of indirect discrimination. Its most significant contribution however is its reflections on the role of stigma in driving discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin. Also of note is its rejection of a number of approaches used in national law – in Bulgaria and elsewhere – as incompatible with European Union anti-discrimination law. The judgment is among the most important ecj rulings to date on discrimination. The current article discusses some of the noteworthy aspects of the case.

scholarly journals Case Report on C-411/10, N.S. and C-493/10, M.E. and Others, 21 December 2011

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Lieven
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Report ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The European Court of Justice clarified through this judgment the way in which the overloading of a Member States’ asylum system affects the EU arrangements for determining the Member State responsible for asylum applications lodged in the EU and thereby drastically reduced the possibility granted to Member States to transfer asylum applicants. The Member States now have an obligation to verify that no serious risk of violation of the Charter rights of the applicant exits in the receiving country before being allowed to transfer the person. The practical consequences of this ruling are still uncertain but further cooperation between Member States should be able to enhance the level of protection of human rights within the Common European Asylum System.

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.

scholarly journals The Political Role of the European Court of Justice: How the EU Institutional Thresholds Shield the Integrationist Power of the Court

2019 ◽  
pp. 195-212
Author(s):  
Roberto Reyes Izquierdo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Political Role ◽  
Fundamental Factor ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

The aim of this paper is to analyse how the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has been a fundamental factor in the integration process of the European Union, in spite of the obstacles posed by the intergovernmental dynamics that have traditionally hindered the construction of a stronger, cohesive and more integrated Europe. Important principles such as direct effect or supremacy of EU law have been developed through ECJ rulings and case law, even when such principles were not literally foreseen in the foundational Treaties. Therefore, this paper argues that the role and power of the Court as an “indirect law-maker” have been essential for the construction of the European Union, and this has been possible due to the complexities and weaknesses of the legislative process involving the three main decision-makers: the Commission, the Council of the EU, and the European Parliament.

scholarly journals The Randstad Case: Melki Reloaded? The Fundamental Right to Effective Judicial Protection as Battleground for Judicial Supremacy in European Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-68
Author(s):  
Orlando Scarcello
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
European Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Supremacy ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
The Eu

This paper will examine the recent preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice issued by the Italian Court of Cassation in the Randstad case, aimed at rearranging the internal constitutional separation between ordinary and administrative courts (article 111(8) of the Constitution). I will first provide some context on both the relations between Italian and EU courts (2.1) and on the confrontation between the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court in interpreting article 111 (2.2). I will then specifically examine the referring order to the Court of Justice of the EU (3), focusing on the role of general clauses of EU law as articles 4(3) and 19 TEU and 47 of the Charter in it. Finally, I will consider the instrumental use of EU law made by the Cassation to overcome an unpleasant constitutional arrangement. This aligns Randstad with previous cases such as Melki or A v. B and may foster constitutional conflict in the future. 

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 An evolving conception of discrimination in Europe

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Abel
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Czech Republic ◽  
Ethnic Origin ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Segregated Schools ◽  
South Wales ◽  
European Court ◽  
Indirect Discrimination ◽  
Grand Chamber

CESAA 19th ANNUAL EUROPE ESSAY COMPETITION 2011 - Postgraduate winner: Simone Abel (University of New South Wales)In 2007, the European Court of Human Rights’ Grand Chamber handed down its judgment in DH and Others v Czech Republic. The case arose out of the disproportionately high number of Roma children assigned places in segregated schools for children with intellectual disabilities in the Czech Republic. It was alleged that this practice discriminated against Roma children who had normal, or even above normal, intelligence levels. The applicants claimed that they had been discriminated against in the enjoyment of their right to education on account of their race or ethnic origin  TheCourt made a finding of indirect discrimination against the Czech government. Commentators have hailed this as a landmark judgment that expands the conception of discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights. This paper will discuss how this finding differs from the First Chamber’s judgment and other ECHR caselaw to alter the conception of discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights.

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.

scholarly journals Potencialidades del pilar europeo de derechos sociales en la praxis jurisprudencial del juez de Estrasburgo: entre la heterarquía vínculo social-vínculo económico y la disfuncionalidad

2019 ◽  
pp. 609
Author(s):  
Ainhoa Lasa López
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Evolutionary Interpretation

El recurso a los principios de la protección efectiva y la interpretación evolutiva ha generado una prominente casuística de reconocimiento accesorio de algunos derechos sociales de prestación por parte del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Paralelamente, el Pilar Europeo de Derechos Sociales, con su objetivo de mejorar la integración positiva del euro sistema, parece ampliar el contenido de algunos derechos sociales contemplados por la Carta de Derechos de la Unión. Siguiendo estas coordenadas, el objetivo del presente artículo es reflexionar sobre el papel del Pilar en la línea argumental de la garantía de la dimensión objetiva de los derechos humanos de la Convención desarrollada por el juez de Estrasburgo.The use of the principles of effective protection and evolutionary interpretation has generated a prominent casuistry of accessory recognition of some social rights by the European Court of Human Rights. On the other hand, the European Pillar of Social Rights, with its objective of improving the positive integration of the euro system, seems to expand the content of some social rights contemplated by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Following these coordinates, the objective of this article is to reflect on the role of Pilar in the line of reasoning of guaranteeing the objective dimension of human rights of the Convention developed by the judge of Strasbourg.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document