A Supranational Critic on Peruvian Labor System: The Problem of the Effectiveness of Fundamental Rights at Work and its Judicial Protection

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 174-178
Author(s):  
Luis Mendoza Legoas
Author(s):  
Aida TORRES PÉREZ

Abstract This contribution will tackle a central question for the architecture of fundamental rights protection in the EU: can we envision a Charter that fully applies to the Member States, even beyond the limits of its scope of application? To improve our understanding of the boundaries of the Charter and the potential for further expansion, I will examine the legal avenues through which the CJEU has extended the scope of application of EU fundamental rights in fields of state powers. While the latent pull of citizenship towards a more expansive application of the Charter has not been fully realized, the principle of effective judicial protection (Article 19(1) TEU) has recently shown potential for protection under EU law beyond the boundaries of the Charter. As will be argued, effective judicial protection may well become a doorway for full application of the Charter to the Member States. While such an outcome might currently seem politically unsound, I contend that a progressive case-by-case expansion of the applicability of the Charter to the Member States would be welcome from the standpoint of a robust notion of the rule of law in the EU.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 72-82
Author(s):  
Jorge Castellanos Claramunt ◽  
María Dolores Montero Caro

Artificial Intelligence has an undeniable effect on today’s society, so its study regarding its legal effects becomes necessary. And consequently, how fundamental rights are affected is of particular importance. Hence, the present paper studies the influence of algorithms in determining judicial decisions, especially from the point of view of how this issue would affect the right to effective judicial protection, recognized as a fundamental right in article 24 of the Spanish Constitution.


2021 ◽  
pp. 177-229
Author(s):  
Jan Wouters ◽  
Frank Hoffmeister ◽  
Geert De Baere ◽  
Thomas Ramopoulos

This chapter provides an overview of the sanctions that are available to the EU in the conduct of its foreign policy. First, it focuses on EU restrictive measures or sanctions analysing the applicable provisions and procedure for their adoption under the EU Treaties before making a systematic presentation of the different regimes adopted by the Union and their link to UN sanctions. The chapter also delves into the large corpus of case law on the compliance of sanctions with fundamental rights, in particular procedural rights, such as the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection, and substantive rights, such as the right to carry out an economic activity and right to property. A section is also dedicated to the constantly developing case law on actions for damages from sanctions. Sanctions adopted by the Union within the framework of cooperation and association agreements for the violation of certain essential elements of these agreements are also analysed. Lastly, a discussion of the specific case of the blocking statute, an autonomous measure adopted to counter extraterritorial effects of legislation and actions of third states, which was recently updated, forms part of this chapter.


Author(s):  
Juan Fernando López Aguilar

Durante las legislaturas europeas 2009-2014 y 2014-2019 la UE viene asistiendo al desafío planteado por los alarmantes signos de deterioro y retroceso de la democracia en la UE. No por casualidad esta tendencia ha coincidido con la inmersión de la Unión en la peor crisis de su historia, que arrancó en 2008 y ha venido en llamarse la «Gran Recesión» de la UE o la «glaciación» europea. Hungría ha sido durante este período el caso más paradigmático de las derivas antidemocráticas -restricciones del pluralismo político e informativo, de la independencia judicial y de la jurisdicción del TC- experimentadas por países de la UE. Pero, recientemente, Polonia ha dado muestras de un deterioro igualmente preocupante. Con todo no se trata, desgraciadamente, de casos aislados sino una tendencia cada vez más generalizada que ha recibido, según los contextos, el nombre de «putinización» u «orbanización» de Estados miembros de la UE. El presente artículo hace un recuento de los deterioros constitucionales sufridos por esos dos países y de las iniciativas que desde la UE se han puesto en marcha para seguir y dar respuesta a esos procesos. El artículo hace hincapié en los rasgos «antiliberales» o «iliberales» que caracterizan dichas democracias, así como los inherentes al auge del nacionalismo y la intolerancia y los discursos del odio, y los pone en relación con otros procesos históricos de erosión democrática en Europa, incidiendo en la dialéctica democracia vs populismo. El artículo plantea, asimismo, los conflictos que se derivan del denominado «dilema de Copenhague» y del auge de la extrema derecha a lo largo y ancho de la UE y se detiene en algunos casos como el de las restricciones de derechos a los refugiados en Dinamarca o de los retrocesos habidos en los últimos años en derechos y libertades públicas en España. El artículo concluye que los deterioros descritos están vinculados a la «gran ampliación», que supuso la adhesión a la UE de los países del Este, con el telón de fondo de una crisis económica y financiera devenida, en poco tiempo, en crisis social y de valores como consecuencia de las políticas de austeridad impuestas por un manejo insatisfactorio de la propia crisis. Ello ha redundado en una impugnación de la propia idea de construcción europea desde diversos frentes ideológicos. El artículo se detiene, finalmente, en la respuesta europea a las mencionadas derivas a través de una reivindicación de sus valores fundantes y de una protección reforzada de los mismos mediante la implementación de nuevos mecanismos que velen por la calidad democrática y del Estado de derecho en la UE como complemento de los procedimientos judiciales de tutela de los derechos fundamentales comunes a las tradiciones constitucionales comunes de los Estados miembros.During the European legislatures 2009-2014 and 2014-2019 the EU has witnessed the challenge posed by the alarming signs of deterioration and decline of democracy in the EU. Not by chance this trend has coincided with the immersion of the Union in the worst crisis in its history that began in 2008 and has been called the «Great Recession» of the EU or the European «glaciation». Over this period Hungary has been the best example of democratic backsliding in the EU but Poland has shown an equally worrying deterioration lately. Yet these are not, unfortunately, isolated cases but there is rather an increasingly widespread trend in Europe that has received, depending on the context, the name «putinization» or «orbanization». The present article recounts the constitutional deterioration experienced by those two countries and the initiatives that have been launched from the EU to follow-up and contest those processes. The article emphasizes the «anti-liberal » or «iliberal» features that characterize these democracies as well as those marks inherent to the rise of nationalism and intolerance and puts them in relation to other historical processes of democratic erosion in Europe, focusing on the dialectic democracy vs populism. The article also exposes the conflicts stemming from the so-called «Copenhagen dilemma» and the rise of the extreme right across the EU and stops in some concrete cases such as the restrictions on the rights of refugees in Denmark or the limitations which have occurred in recent years in the field of civil liberties in Spain. The article concludes that this deterioration is linked to the «great enlargement», which involved the accession to the EU of the Eastern European countries against the backdrop of a relentless financial and economic crisis that rapidly became in a social crisis and a truly crisis of values as a result of the austerity policies imposed by an unsatisfactory handling of the crisis itself. This has resulted in a challenge to the very idea of European integration coming from different ideological fronts. The article finally stops on the European response to the democratic backsliding described before by reaffirming its fundamental values and by enhancing their protection by implementing new mechanisms to ensure that the quality of democracy and the rule of law in the EU is improved complementing the national systems of judicial protection of fundamental rights legal common to the constitutional traditions of the EU Member States.


2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 535-570
Author(s):  
Paula Poretti

<span>At EU level, discussions on the future direction of development of consumer protection policy revolve around the open question of efficiency of mechanisms for protection and realisation of consumer rights in national legal systems of EU Member States. Measures and activities of the EU legislator resulted in ‘competing’ mechanisms, which objectively creates a need for examination of the extent to which their functions overlap as well as if it is possible to detect the (most) appropriate way for protection of consumer rights. The analysis in the paper starts from the presumption that the consumer protection policy was developed within the measures aimed at integration of the Single Market and harmonization of consumer laws, on the one side and the recognized need of consumer protection as a social and political goal, on the other side. In this sense, the main point discussed in the paper is whether the recent development in the field of consumer protection, including the recent judgments of the European court could be interpreted as a reflection of the notion that the efficient judicial protection of (individual) consumer rights is (yet) again a priority at EU level. In the first part of the paper the development and application of mechanisms which represent a certain kind of alternative to the judicial consumer protection will be presented. In the second part of the paper, we will consider if the all the more present focus on judicial protection of consumer rights at EU level is an indication of a ‘successful experiment which resulted in unexpected outcome’. The required argumentation will be provided through monitoring of the trend of ‘proceduralization’ or ‘europeanisation’ of the national consumer law in the jurisprudence of the European court. The effect of Article 47 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and its requirement of efficient protection of procedural rights of individuals before national courts of EU Member States will be analysed in detail. At the same time, the recent activities of the European Commission directed at court proceedings before national courts and removal of barriers in their work in the field of consumer protection will be taken into account.</span>


Author(s):  
Juan Ignacio Ugartemendia Eceizabarrena

Este artículo es un estudio relativo a la tutela judicial de los Derechos Fundamentales cuando se aplica Derecho de la Unión en el ámbito interno, y a cuáles son los principales problemas con los que se topa el Juez nacional que aplica el Derecho de la Unión al llevar a cabo dicha función protectora. El trabajo, dicho de forma más concreta, se centra en el examen de una serie de recientes y decisivas resoluciones jurisdiccionales, dictadas tanto por parte del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea como por parte del Tribunal Constitucional Español, que analizan problemas y señalan soluciones relativas a esas cuestiones, además de mostrar cuál es la evolución y el estado de la situación al respecto. Se trata de resoluciones que abordan cuestiones de fondo, como, por ejemplo: ¿hasta qué punto es posible utilizar estándares nacionales de protección de los Derechos Fundamentales en situaciones conectadas con el Derecho de la Unión o con su aplicación, en lugar de utilizar el sistema de protección de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea? Y asimismo, resoluciones que atienden a cuestiones de dimensión más procesal como la de dirimir hasta qué punto tiene autonomía el Juez nacional a la hora de plantear una petición prejudicial (se entiende a la hora de tutelar derechos reconocidos por normas de la Unión) en relación a las normas procesales nacionales.This article deals with the judicial protection of fundamental rights when EU Law is applied at national level and the main problems national judges have to deal with when applying EU Law as protectors of rights. More precisely, the work is focused on the examination of some recent and decisive judicial decisions, both by the European Court of Justice and by the Spanish Constitutional Court which analyze the problems and address the solutions to those questions besides showing the evolution and current situation in that regard. They are decisions that deal with the merits as for example to which extent it might be possible to use national standards of protection of fundamental rights in situations connected to EU Law or to its application instead of using the system of protection of EU human rights. Likewise, they are decisions which handle with more procedural questions as for example to what extent national judges are autonomous to file a preliminary question (it is understood that when it comes time to protect rights acknowledged by the EU) relative to national procedural rules.


2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 884-903
Author(s):  
Kathleen Gutman

AbstractThis contribution examines the developing contours of the essence of the fundamental right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial in the light of salient case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is divided into three main parts. The first part provides an overview of the meaning of the essence of fundamental rights in EU law and the scope of the inquiry in relation to Article 47 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union (“the Charter”). The second part evaluates the essence of the fundamental right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial in connection with justified limitations that may be placed on its exercise as provided for in Article 52(1) of the Charter within the framework of the EU system of fundamental rights protection, which in turn implicates the relationship with the Court’s case-law on national procedural autonomy, equivalence, and effectiveness. The third part delves into the essence of the fundamental right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial within the framework of the EU system of judicial protection, as illustrated by the Court’s case-law in several areas, including standing for individuals in direct actions before the EU courts, judicial independence, and restrictive measures in the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Through this analysis, the author argues that, while much awaits further refinement, certain recent developments in the Court’s case–law indicate that the essence of the fundamental right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial can play a meaningful role in the EU system of fundamental rights protection and the EU system of judicial protection more broadly, and thus the best may be yet to come as that case-law progresses in the future.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-124
Author(s):  
Joana Covelo de Abreu

Under today’s European constitutional demands, effective judicial protection sets the tone concerning potential jurisdictional instruments able to act as constitutionality control mechanisms. Inter-jurisdictionality stands for different and complementary jurisdictional systems living togetherin the same space and it aims to understand how their reflexive interactions can be maintained to promote effective judicial protection. Both the infringement procedure and the preliminary ruling act as constitutional controls. The first allows the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to evaluate the incompatibility of national solutions/omissions with EU law but, to meet its full effectiveness, widening legitimate parties needs to be considered as well. Also, validity preliminary rulings act as a constitutional control in proceedings relating to individuals – national judges should be aware of their referring obligations to the CJEU. There are voices amongst European academia that advocate a new constitutional procedure to promote fundamental rights’ protection. However, the main formulas highlighted rely on solutions tested on the national level which can compromise their efficacy. We perceive an inter-jurisdictional paradigm as the proper approach since it will allowthe promotion of effective judicial protection at a constitutional level as a new EU dogmatically thought phenomenon. This is to ensure judicial integration can be perceived as a reality, engaged in pursuing the future of the EU.


2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-166
Author(s):  
Evangelia (Lilian) Tsourdi

This article explores the multifaceted relationship between the principle of effective judicial protection, the fundamental right to an effective remedy, and secondary EU procedural rules in asylum. Proceduralisation has been an explicit goal of the EU asylum policy since its inception. It has materialised in three legislative waves. The first resulted in the creation of a basic set of procedural guarantees, alongside a plethora of exceptional procedures. The second resulted in modest improvements in terms of harmonisation, and adherence to fundamental rights, but saw exceptional procedural arrangements either retained or introduced. The third, forthcoming wave, aims at further harmonisation that risks, however, being heavily focused on the underlying goal of externalising protection to third countries. Case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union has further refined procedural guarantees shaping national procedural autonomy. Drawing from the Charter rights to good administration and to an effective remedy, the Court has not shied away from adducing additional procedural requirements. It has also clarified how the principle of effective judicial protection and the Charter right to an effective remedy relate to each other, finding that the latter reaffirms the principle of effective judicial protection and largely aligning their scope. The emerging procedural landscape is increasingly complex. The Court's nuanced assessments combined with a plethora of exceptional arrangements at national level led to convoluted standards that are increasingly difficult to put in practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document