Article 47 CFR and the effective enforcement of EU labour law: Teeth for paper tigers?

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 391-402
Author(s):  
Jeremias Adams-Prassl

‘Social rights’, the late Professor Sir Bob Hepple warned in 2007 ‘are like paper tigers, fierce in appearance but missing in tooth and claw.’ This note sets out to explore the potential of the right to an effective remedy in Article 47 of the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘CFR’) in equipping the Union’s social acquis with credible remedies. Article 47 CFR is one of the most-litigated and important Articles in the Charter. At the same time, however, it has received surprisingly little attention in the context of EU employment law. Discussion is structured as follows: section one explores the rise of the principle of effectiveness, from the early case law of the Court of Justice to the Charter’s entry into force in 2009. Section two sketches the powerful potential of Article 47 CFR, highlighting its utility both in tackling domestic obstacles to effective enforcement, and expanding the horizontal applicability of EU employment law. Section three briefly highlights some of the limitations litigants might encounter, including a general emphasis on broad regulatory discretion for Member States, and the difficult of crafting (positive) duties out of (negative) restraints. A brief concluding section turns to EU law more broadly, as well as the European Convention of Human Rights, for inspirations guiding the potential future development of Article 47 CFR.

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-116
Author(s):  
Mariolina Eliantonio

Environmental policy is an area which has been quite heavily proceduralised and is a rather peculiar example of 'multi-level proceduralisation' because of the presence of the Aarhus Convention. This paper explores the relevant procedural provisions taken in the field of environmental law and in particular in implementation of the Aarhus Convention, and examines the case law which has involved these provisions. This case law is specifically discussed as concerns the way in which the Court of Justice deals with the interaction between the relevant secondary rules and the general principles of effectiveness and effective judicial protection, as well as Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights concerning the right to an effective remedy. It is shown that it is difficult to distill a consistent approach on the part of the Court with regards to this interaction, and that much depends on the specifics of the case and the question posed by the referring court. However, with the latest case law, despite the apparent lack of underlying rights which would be able to trigger the applicability of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Court of Justice seems to be moving towards a heavier involvement of Article 47 of the Charter and, consequently, of a 'language of rights', which increasingly plays a pivotal role in boosting the effectiveness of the Aarhus Convention.


2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (9) ◽  
pp. 1851-1865
Author(s):  
Haakon Roer-Eide ◽  
Mariolina Eliantonio

The right to an effective legal remedy is a generally accepted principle of modern legal systems and is enshrined in national constitutions as well as international treaties, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. On the European Union (hereinafter EU) level, the right to an effective remedy is laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut

The core function of the judiciary is the administration of justice through delivering judgments and other decisions. The crucial role for its acceptance and legitimization by not only lawyers, but also individulas (parties) and the hole society plays judicial reasoning. It should reflect on judge’s independence within the exercise of his office and show also judicial self-restraint or activism. The axiology and the standards of proper judicial reasoning are anchored both in constitutional and supranational law and case-law. Polish Constitutional Tribunal derives a duty to give reasoning from the right to a fair trial – right to be heard and bring own submissions before the court (Article 45 § 1 of the Constitution), the right to appeal against judgments and decisions made at first stage (Article 78), the rule of two stages of the court proceedings (Article 176) and rule of law clause (Article 2), that comprises inter alia right to due process of law and the rule of legitimate expactation / the protection of trust (Vertrauensschutz). European Court of Human Rights derives this duty to give reasons from the guarantees of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of European Convention of Human Rights. In its case-law the ECtHR, taking into account the margin of appreciation concept, formulated a number of positive and negative requirements, that should be met in case of proper reasoning. The obligation for courts to give sufficient reasons for their decisions is also anchored in European Union law. European Court of Justice derives this duty from the right to fair trial enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Standards of the courts reasoning developed by Polish constitutional court an the European courts (ECJ and ECtHR) are in fact convergent and coherent. National judges should take them into consideration in every case, to legitimize its outcome and enhance justice delivery.


2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-215
Author(s):  
Elise Muir

This paper investigates the relationship between legislative provisions and fundamental rights by analyzing the Egenberger, IR, Bauer, Max-Planck and Cresco cases. This paper understands these cases as an invitation to reflect on whether, and if so, to what extent, EU fundamental rights' legislation, read in conjunction with the Charter, could have an impact on the scope of application, substance and/or legal effects of the Charter. This paper argues that the Court of Justice's recent case law can be understood as allowing for EU legislative guidance on fundamental rights to interact in an upward process with the rights enshrined in norms with the same rank as EU primary law. This paper sheds light on the constitutional implications of the overlaps between legislation and constitutional norms on fundamental norms while other contributions in this special issue address effectiveness and the right to an effective remedy in a broader sense.


2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 285-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reingard Zimmer

A number of countries worldwide provide for a statutory minimum wage. Generally speaking, however, it is not a living wage, although the right to a living wage is guaranteed in a variety of agreements under both international and European law. The Council of Europe’s European Social Charter (ESC), for example, codifies a living wage and, according to the case-law of its supervisory body, the level of 60 per cent of the net average wage is to be taken as the basis for appropriate remuneration. This article argues that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also incorporates the right to a living wage, which should be at least 60 per cent of the net average wage. The Charter is legally binding for EU institutions, agencies and other bodies. Member States are bound only to the extent that the material scope of the relevant EU laws has been opened, which is the case when EU law is implemented or when obligations arising out of specific Union legislation are required for the relevant subject area, as will be explained in the article. In purely national situations nevertheless, values laid down in international law have to be observed when interpreting national laws.


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 168-173
Author(s):  
Tamara Gerasimenko

The subject. The article is devoted to the subject of the exhaustion of domestic remediesbefore filing a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights.The purpose. The purpose of this article is to show and reveal the characteristics of suchimportant condition of lodging a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights asthe exhaustion of domestic remedies.The methodology. The following scientific methods have been used to write this article:analysis, comparing and making conclusions.Results, scope of application. The right of individual petition is rightly considered to be thehallmark and the greatest achievement of the European Convention on Human Rights. Individualswho consider that their human rights have been violated have the possibility oflodging a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights. However, there are importantadmissibility requirements set out in the Convention that must be satisfied beforea case be examined. Applicants are expected to have exhausted their domestic remediesand have brought their complaints within a period of six months from the date of the finaldomestic decision. The obligation to exhaust domestic remedies forms part of customaryinternational law, recognized as such in the case – law of the International Court of Justice.The rationale for the exhaustion rule is to give the national authorities, primarily the courts,the opportunity to prevent or put right the alleged violation of the Convention. The domesticlegal order should provide an effective remedy for violations of Convention rights.Conclusions. The rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies is an important part of the functioningof the protection system under the Convention and its basic principle. 


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 6-17
Author(s):  
Réka Friedery

Family reunification is defined by primary and secondary EU law and by the case law of the CJEU. The cornerstones are the Charter of Fundamental Rights encompasses the principle of the respect of family life and the fundamental European standards for family reunification of third-state nationals are based in the Council Directive on the Right to Family Reunification. The EU directive explicitly confirms among others that family reunification is a necessary way of making family life possible. The article analyses the way the jurisdiction of the CJEU widens the notion of family reunification and how it offers more realistic picture for the growing importance of family reunification.


2018 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 32-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela WARD

AbstractThis article explores the influence of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the development of EU equal treatment law, with emphasis on forms of discrimination precluded by Council Directive 2000/43 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, and Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. The author contends that although Articles 20 and 21 are primary measure of EU law, their impact in the development of case law elaborated pursuant to the Directives is relatively muted. This may have stunted the development of jurisprudence on the relationship between Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter, and rules contained in Title VI of the Charter governing its interpretation and application, such as Article 52(3) on the relationship between the Charter and the European Convention on Human Rights, and Article 52(1) on justified limitations. The author forewarns against the emergence of incoherence in the case law in this context, and with respect to the role of Articles 20 and 21 in disputes over the meaning of Directives 2000/43 and 2000/78 and calls for fuller reflection on Charter rules in disputes based on an allegation of discrimination.


2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 482-511
Author(s):  
Stephen Brittain

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.


Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter examines the application of EU law by national courts and the way in which the CJEU controls national remedies for breach of EU law. Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union contains a new clause added by the Lisbon Treaty, which specifies that ‘Member States shall provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law’. Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights provides that ‘[e]veryone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article’. However, beyond these broad new provisions, EU law does not lay down any general scheme of substantive or procedural law governing remedies for its enforcement. The European Court of Justice has responded to the lack of a harmonized system of EU remedies by requiring national courts, in certain cases, to make available a particular type of remedy (e.g., restitution or interim relief), regardless of whether this would be available under national law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document