A STEP BACK IN THE PROTECTION OF MIGRANTS’ RIGHTS: THE GRAND CHAMBER’S JUDGMENT IN KHLAIFIA V. ITALY

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 287-317
Author(s):  
Maria Rosaria Mauro
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Arab Spring ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Court ◽  
Migrants Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Arab Spring ◽  
Article 5

On 15 December 2016 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights adopted the judgment in Khlaifia and Others v. Italy. The case was referred to the Grand Chamber by Italy following the judgment released by the Second Section of the Court on 1 September 2015. The case concerns the detention and the ensuing repatriation to Tunisia of three irregular immigrants who arrived in Italy in 2011 during the “Arab Spring”. The judgment of the Grand Chamber confirms the Chamber’s judgment in relation to some important aspects, finding a violation of Article 5, paragraphs (1)(2) and (4), and of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3, and recognising no violation of Article 3 as to the conditions in which the applicants were held on the ships Vincent and Audace in the harbour of Palermo. On the contrary, the Grand Chamber distances itself from the Chamber’s assessment concerning the respect of Article 3 in relation to the conditions in which the applicants were held in the Centro di soccorso e prima accoglienza (Centre for Rescue and Initial Reception) on Lampedusa, of Article 4 Protocol No. 4 and of Article 13 ECHR taken together with Article 4 Protocol No. 4 ECHR, as the majority in the Chamber found the violation of these articles. This note analyses the differences between the two judgments, emphasising possible implications for the protection of the rights of migrants in Europe. In this context, the European Union “hotspot approach” and the Italian “Decreto Minniti” are also considered.

Fundamental Rights Protection between Strasbourg and Luxembourg

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katalin Ligeti
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber

Since long before the entry into force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU), the two highest courts in Europe, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have sought to develop their respective jurisprudence in such a way as to ensure a strong protection of individual rights, whilst avoiding clashes between the decisions taken in Luxembourg and Strasbourg. An important statement in this regard is provided by the Bosphorus judgment, in which the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR recognised the existence of a presumption of equivalent protection of fundamental rights under EU law. The presumption is rebuttable, but expresses the trustful attitude (and a certain degree of deference) of Strasbourg towards the ability of EU law (and of the CJEU) to protect Convention rights.

scholarly journals Enlarging the Immunities of European Parliament’s Members: The Junqueras Judgment

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-101
Author(s):  
Victor Torre de Silva
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Members Of European Parliament

AbstractMembers of Parliament have traditionally enjoyed different kinds of immunities; nowadays, these are openly criticized on several grounds. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has recently given a judgment on the inviolability of European Parliament’s members, which might be regarded as a milestone in its scarce case law on the matter: Oriol Junqueras Vies, Judgment of the Grand Chamber of December 19, 2019. This Article intends to summarize and comment on this decision, a preliminary reference requested by the Spanish Supreme Court in a notorious criminal procedure, connected with the suspended referendum on Catalonia’s independence. The CJEU reinforces the inviolability of Members of European Parliament (MEPs), thus strengthening the powers of this institution. However, the judgment perhaps fails to fully capture European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law and was rendered at a time when the controversy on Mr. Junqueras had arguably become outdated.

J. N. v. Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie (C.J.E.U.)

2017 ◽  
Vol 56 (5) ◽  
pp. 931-950
Author(s):  
Lieneke Slingenberg
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Article 5

On February 15, 2016, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or the Court) delivered its preliminary ruling in a case about the detention of Mr. N. Mr. N. was detained pending the examination of his (fourth) asylum application and claimed that his detention was in violation of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Since his detention was provided for in relevant EU legislation, the question referred to the CJEU was about the validity of this EU legislation.

scholarly journals Castaño avoids a clash between the ECtHR and the CJEU, but erodes Soering. Thinking human rights transnationally

2020 ◽  
pp. 203228442097974
Author(s):  
Sibel Top ◽  
Paul De Hert
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Union Member ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
European Union Member States

This article examines the changing balance established by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) between human rights filters to extradition and the obligation to cooperate and how this shift of rationale brought the Court closer to the position of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in that respect. The article argues that the ECtHR initially adopted a position whereby it prioritised human rights concerns over extraditions, but that it later nuanced that approach by establishing, in some cases, an obligation to cooperate to ensure proper respect of human rights. This refinement of its position brought the ECtHR closer to the approach adopted by the CJEU that traditionally put the obligation to cooperate above human rights concerns. In recent years, however, the CJEU also backtracked to some extent from its uncompromising attitude on the obligation to cooperate, which enabled a convergence of the rationales of the two Courts. Although this alignment of the Courts was necessary to mitigate the conflicting obligations of European Union Member States towards both Courts, this article warns against the danger of making too many human rights concessions to cooperation in criminal matters.

scholarly journals Khlaifia and Others v. Italy

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-280
Author(s):  
Jill I. Goldenziel
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Detention Centers ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Arab Spring ◽  
Domestic Law

In Khlaifia and Others v. Italy, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber or Court) released a landmark opinion with broad implications for how states must respect the individual rights of migrants. In the judgment, issued on December 15, 2016, the Court held that Italy's treatment of migrants after the Arab Spring violated the requirement of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that migrants receive procedural guarantees that enable them to challenge their detention and expulsion. The Court also held that Italy's treatment of migrants in detention centers did not violate the ECHR's prohibition on cruel and inhuman treatment, in part due to the emergency circumstances involved. The Court further held that Italy's return of migrants to Tunisia did not violate the prohibition on collective expulsion in Article 4 of Protocol 4 of the ECHR. Enforcement of the judgment would require many European states to provide a clear basis in domestic law for the detention of migrants and asylum-seekers. Given the global diffusion of state practices involving migrants, and other states’ desires to restrict migration, this case has broad implications for delineating the obligations of states to migrants and the rights of migrants within receiving countries.

scholarly journals Ferreira, Nuno and Venturi, Denise (2017) Tell me what you see and I’ll tell you if you’re gay: analysing the advocate general’s opinion in case C-473/16, F v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal.

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuno Ferreira ◽  
Denise Venturi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Knowledge ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Institutions ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Hungarian Society ◽  
European Court ◽  
Poor Treatment

Hungary has been in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons for quite a while. From legislation targeting ‘foreign-operating universities’ to border walls to keep refugees from entering Hungarian territory, the populist right-wing government of Viktor Orban has been sparking outrage in many sectors of Hungarian society, and the European institutions. The most recent reason for alarm again relates to migration and refugees, an area of widespread criticism of Hungarian authorities. Building on extremely hostile policies towards refugees that have been admonished by both the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Hungarian authorities now intend to resort to highly dubious means to assess the applications of individuals claiming asylum on grounds related to their sexual orientation. It was already public knowledge that this category of claimants was subjected to poor treatment by the Hungarian authorities, but recent events suggest that the authorities have reached a new low.

scholarly journals Refl ections on the Principle of Equal Treatment in EU Law and the Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-23
Author(s):  
Marija Daka
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Complex Approach

The paper presents some of the most relevant aspects of European nondiscrimination law established th rough European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights, looking also at the evolution of the norms and milestones of case-law on equal treatment within the two systems. The paper gives an overview of the non-discrimination concept as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union and by the European Court of Human Rights. We examine the similar elements but also give insight into conceptual differences between the two human rights regimes when dealing with equal treatment. The differences mainly stem from the more complex approach taken by EU law although, based on analysed norms, cases, and provisions, the aspects of equal treatment in EU law are largely consistent with the practice of the ECtHR. Lastly, the paper briefl y places the European non-discrimination law within the multi-layered human rights system, giving some food for thought for the future potential this concept brings.

6. Finding cases

2021 ◽  
pp. 114-136
Author(s):  
Emily Finch ◽  
Stefan Fafinski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

This chapter presents the skills needed to find cases. It first explains the meanings of case citations before moving on to discuss how to locate domestic cases. It then describes how to find decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the General Court, and the European Court of Human Rights.

5. Finding cases

Legal Skills ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Finch ◽  
Stefan Fafinski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

This chapter presents the skills needed to find cases. It first explains the meanings of case citations before moving on to discuss how to locate domestic cases. It then describes how to find decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the General Court, and the European Court of Human Rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document