The European Court of Justice and Citizenship of the European Union: New Developments Towards a Truly Fundamental Status

ICL Journal ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michaela Hailbronner ◽  
Sara Iglesias Sánchez
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
New Developments ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
New Development ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Eu Fundamental Rights

AbstractIn two recent, revolutionary decisions, - Janko Rottmann C-135/08 and Ruiz Zambrano C-34/09 - the European Court of Justice has firmly emancipated the status of citizenship of the Union from the “cross-border” requirement and has inaugurated a new area for the protection of rights closely linked to the core of sovereignty of States, - nationality and residence. This Article examines these two judgments and argues that they take the construction of citizenship towards a federal status. The “genuine enjoyment of the substance of citizenship rights” has emerged as a new legal category that is capable of providing a uniform and general protection and entails the affirmation of a core of rights of a supranational nature. This new development raises questions as to whether the ECJ's expansionist reading of citizenship constitutes a legitimate exercise of judicial power and as to what will be the relationship between citizenship and EU fundamental rights. We conclude by exploring the potential of the judgments analyzed in terms of placing Union citizenship at the center of the emergence of a constitutional patriotism in Europe.

6 Responsibility, 6.5 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm veTicaret Anonim Sirketi v Ireland , App. No. 45036/98, European Court of Human Rights, 30 June 2005

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lock Tobias
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
International Organization ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Concrete Case ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Relationship

In Bosphorus the ECtHR introduced the so-called Bosphorus presumption: if a member state of an international organization acted in compliance with an obligation arising from its membership and had no discretion, there is a rebuttable presumption that the member state has complied with its obligations under the ECHR provided that the organization itself ensures a protection of fundamental rights equivalent to what the Convention requires. The Court considered that the European Union met this test. If an organization provides equivalent protection, the presumption can be rebutted, but only if this protection was manifestly deficient in the concrete case. By formulating the presumption the ECtHR showed a great deal of respect for the European Court of Justice and placed the relationship between the two European courts on relatively solid ground. A number of questions remain, however.

The Domestic Reach of General Principles of Law: First City Trading Revisited

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 199-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nick Grief
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Academic Evaluation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
General Principles Of Law

This is a critical analysis—in the light of the Lisbon Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and recent European Court of Justice (ECJ) case law—of the judgment in R v MAFF, ex p First City Trading, or at least of that part of the judgment concerning the domestic reach of general principles of law. Laws J held that the legal status of the general principles ‘made’ by the ECJ is inferior to that of the principles enshrined in the Treaty, and that therefore the domestic reach of the former is narrower than that of the latter. In the years since the judgment was delivered, however, it does not appear to have been considered by the ECJ and there seems to have been little academic evaluation of its cogency and implications. One commentator considered that the distinction drawn by the judge seemed correct. Another was critical, asserting that ‘the distinction between principles based on Treaty provisions and general principles of law cannot be deduced from the case law of the Court of Justice’. The possible entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, which recognises that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (and thus presumably the rights, freedoms and principles within it) has ‘the same legal value as the Treaties’, makes it appropriate to revisit the judgment and consider whether Laws J’s approach was correct.

The European Union and the Territorial Scope of European Territories

2007 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacques Ziller
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Overseas Territories ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

In this paper Professor Ziller addresses the intriguing question of the relationship of the European Union – which is not a state and which has no territory of its own – to the territories of EU Member States. The paper provides a survey of the overseas territories affected and the evolution of the case law of the European Court of Justice on the extent to which the provisions of the EC Treaty apply to the European territories overseas.

scholarly journals The Relative Autonomy of the EU Human Rights Standard

2008 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
LB ◽  
JHR
Keyword(s):  
Family Life ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Traditional Sense ◽  
The Eu

To this day the founding treaties of the European Union contain no legally binding bill of rights in the traditional sense protecting religion, privacy, family life, the freedom of expression, and so forth. As we all know, while the European Court of Justice initially rejected appeals relying on fundamental rights as found in national constitutions, the Court changed its position under pressure of German courts.

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.

9 Article 13 EC: Mere Rhetoric or a Harbinger of Change?

1998 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 175-197
Author(s):  
Lisa Waddington
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

Since the signing of the Treaty on European Union in Maastricht in 1992, calls have gradually been increasing for a greater recognition of, and firmer foundation for, fundamental (social) rights within the European Union. These calls naturally became louder following the Opinion of the European Court of Justice excluding the possibility of EC accession to the European Convention of Human Rights and during the lead up to the Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference. Academics, independent EU Advisory Committees, groups representing the interests of EU citizens and residents and the European Parliament lamented the almost complete absence of fundamental social rights in the Treaty, and called for an ambitious revision of the Treaty. To a large extent these calls went unheard in Amsterdam, and the new Treaty does not incorporate a comprehensive list of social fundamental rights.

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.

scholarly journals Ne bis in idem: a separation of acts in transnational cases?

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-115
Author(s):  
Márk Némedi
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This paper analyses the case-law of the European Court of Justice on the substantive scope of ne bis in idem in transnational cases and evaluates the findings in light of the different concepts of legal interests inherent in the concept of crime as a material notion. I argue that the application of the interpretation of the ECJ to crimes against collective interests is insufficiently justified. As a result, the interpretation of ne bis in idem based on material facts appears only partially correct and a sense of distrust seems to be cemented between member states creating obstacles to a successful reform of the principle. Part one attempts to defend that the reasoning put forward by the court lacks relevance and evaluates how this affects mutual trust. Part two analyses this interpretation in the light of different forms of legal interest. Part three examines how later case-law has tried to explain the problematic interpretation of early cases and its relationship with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The article will conclude by summarising the findings which may put into perspective the more general challenges of cooperation in criminal matters within the EU.

scholarly journals Glosa do wyroku Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej z dnia 12 lutego 2015 r. w sprawie Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry c/a Elektrobudowa Spółka Akcyjna (C‑396/13)

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 191-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Witold Kurowski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Employment Relationships ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Polish Law ◽  
Rome I

This paper aims to comment an important ruling concerning the Posted Workers Directive (Directive 96/71/EC). In the judgement C-396/13 (Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry v. Elektrobudowa Spółka Akcyjna), the European Court of Justice providedits pro-worker’s interpretation of Art 3 of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the scope of the "minimum pay rate". The second issue raised by the European Court of Justice was the assignability of pay claims governed by Polish law based on Art 14 (2) of Rome I Regulation and prohibited under that law. In commented judgement, the Court admitted the assignment of claims arising from employment relationships in light of article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and accepted the trade union’s right to represent the posted workers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document