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.

The Relationship Between the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights: an Originalist Analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 482-511
Author(s):  
Stephen Brittain
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Relationship

European Convention on Human Rights and the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights: relationship – Teleological method of interpretation of the European Court of Justice: meaning, justifications, and criticisms – Originalist method of interpretation: meaning, justifications, and criticisms – Original meaning of Article 52(3) of the Charter: text, drafting history, case law – Conclusion: case law of European Court of Human Rights not strictly binding on the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Enforcing EUCHR Principles and Fundamental Rights in Environmental Cases

2012 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas de Sadeleer
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Clean Environment

So far, EU treaty law does not encapsulate any individually justiciable rights to a clean environment or to health. The article explores whether individuals can rely on the environmental duties embodied in the European Union Charter of Human Rights (EUCHR), and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in cases falling within the scope of EU environmental law. Moreover, it takes a close examination of the case law of both the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the standing of individuals whose environment is impaired.

Ne Bis Interpretatio In Idem?The Two Faces of theNe Bis In IdemPrinciple in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Rosanò
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Regional Custom

The meaning ofidemin thene bis in idemprinciple is controversial in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In interpreting the provision of Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement, the court has emphasized the necessary requirement in the identity of the material acts while in antitrust law three requirements have been deemed necessary: (1) Identity of the facts, (2) unity of offender, and (3) unity of the legal interest protected. Despite the opinions of some Advocates General, the court has confirmed different interpretations of the same principle, depending on differences of the legal scope in question. A few years ago, however, the European Court of Human Rights proclaimed the criterion based on the identity of the material acts as the most suitable. This might push the Court of Justice of the European Union to correct its position in the antitrust field. Should this happen, this adjustment might serve as grounds to recognize the existence of a regional custom concerning thene bis in idemprinciple.

The Past, Present and Future of the Ne Bis In Idem Dialogue between the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights: The Cases of Menci, Garlsson and Di Puma

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-84
Author(s):  
Max Vetzo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Market Abuse ◽  
The Past ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem

The cases of Menci (C-524/15), Garlsson (C-537/16) and Di Puma (C-596/16 and C-597/16) deal with the duplication of criminal and punitive administrative proceedings for the same conduct in the area of VAT and market abuse. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that this duplication of proceedings constitutes a limitation of the ne bis in idem principle of Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Charter). This infringement is only justified if the requirements of the limitation clause of Article 52(1) of the Charter are met. The judgments were highly anticipated as they constitute the response of the CJEU to the judgment in A and B v Norway delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in which the ECtHR lowered the level of protection afforded by the ne bis in idem principle of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention of Human Rights (A4P7 ECHR). While there are differences between the approaches taken by both courts, it appears that the reasoning of the CJEU in the judgments largely mirrors that of the ECtHR in A and B v Norway. This article frames the judgments in terms of the dialogue between the CJEU and ECtHR on the ne bis in idem principle. It does so chronologically, by focusing on the past, present and future of the ne bis in idem dialogue between both European courts.

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.

EU values reflection in ECtHR case law

2021 ◽  
pp. 23-29
Author(s):  
Dmytro Boichuk ◽  
Kateryna Torhashova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

The article focuses on the importance of the European Union's values in the development of the legal system of the member states of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and for the functioning of the European Union, further integration processes and their reflection in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The ideological interpretation and practical implementation of these decisions are reflected.

Using Comparative Reasoning in Human Rights Adjudication: The Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights Compared

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 383-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher McCrudden
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractThis chapter examines the relationship between the methods that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) use to decide disputes that involve ‘human’ or ‘fundamental’ rights claims, and the substantive outcomes that result from the use of these particular methods. It has a limited aim: in attempting to understand the interrelationship between human rights methodology and human rights outcomes, it considers primarily the use of ‘comparative reasoning’ in ‘human’ and ‘fundamental’ rights claims by these courts. It is not primarily concerned with examining the extent to which the use of comparative reasoning is based on an appropriate methodology or whether there is a persuasive normative theory underpinning the use of comparative reasoning. The issues considered in this chapter do some of the groundwork, however, that is necessary in order to address these methodological and normative questions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document