scholarly journals The «Dublin IV» Proposal: Towards more solidarity and protection of individual rights?

sui generis ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Progin-Theuerkauf
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
Eu Commission ◽  
The Eu

The Achilles‘ heel of the Dublin system is and has always been the lack of solidarity between the Member States and the relatively poor standard of protection of individual rights of the concerned applicants for international protection. In May 2016, the EU Commission has published a proposal to reform the Dublin III Regulation. Will the recast regulation achieve the aim of creating «a more sustainable and fair Common European Asylum System», as announced by the Commission? The following article discusses and analyses the Dublin IV proposal in the light of the principle of solidarity and the EU’s obligation to protect fundamental rights of migrants.

scholarly journals Fundamental Rights as the Cornerstone of Schengen

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 508-534
Author(s):  
Tineke Strik
Keyword(s):  
National Level ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Current Response ◽  
Member States ◽  
Full Compliance ◽  
Enforcement Mechanisms ◽  
Eu Commission ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Although the Schengen Border Code (SBC) explicitly obliges Member States to apply the Schengen rules in full compliance with the fundamental rights, Member States’ adherence to this obligation can be questioned in light of recurrent and reliable reports about fundamental rights violations at the EU’s external borders. This contribution will examine why, apart from the deficiencies in the SCHE-VAL mechanism, the current response towards fundamental rights violations at the border is ineffective. First, it will analyse the legal framework, including the implementing rules, to see if additional guidance is needed. Second, the enforcement mechanisms will be examined: how are violations being addressed at the national level, and how does the EU Commission perceive and fulfills its role regarding enforcement of compliance? As the Commission has often referred to the monitoring mechanism as proposed in the draft Screening Regulation, the contribution will examine to what extent this New Pact file will help to resolve the current impunity. Finally, the article will analyse the role of Frontex regarding human rights violations by Member States. What is their responsibility, how do they perform it, and who is enforcing compliance by Frontex?

scholarly journals EXTREME MATERIAL POVERTY AS A NEGATIVE PREREQUISITE FOR THE TRANSFER OF AN APPLICANT FOR INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION TO THE COMPETENT MEMBER STATE AND FOR THE REJECTION OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE GRANT OF REFUGEE STATUS AS BEING INADMISSIBLE

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-161
Author(s):  
Izabela Małgorzata Wróbel
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Actual Nature ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
The Common ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Eu

             The essential measures for a common European asylum system adopted by the EU institutions include the Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 and the Directive 2013/32/EU. These acts relate to the various stages of the functioning of the common European asylum system, however, there may be a risk of a violation of the fundamental rights of applicants as set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, including the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 4 of the Charter), at both stages. Such a risk may arise as a result of deficiencies in asylum systems of the Member States. If these deficiencies are to fall within the scope of Article 4 of the Charter, they must attain a particularly high level of severity, which depends on all the circumstances of the case. An example of attaining this particularly high level of severity is the situation of extreme material poverty. As acts of the EU asylum law do not contain the terms “particularly high level of severity” and “extreme material poverty” and all the more they do not define them, guidelines on how to interpret and apply Article 4 of the Charter in the context of the common European asylum system should be sought in the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU. Therefore, the aim of the article is to explore and attempt to generalise and develop the basis and the criteria indicated by the CJEU for assessing the actual nature of deficiencies in the asylum system of the Member State in question from the point of view of the prohibition laid down in Article 4 of the Charter, with particular emphasis on the criterion of a particularly high level of severity and the situation of extreme material poverty which meets this criterion.

scholarly journals Rights and Powers in the European Union: Towards a Charter that is Fully Applicable to the Member States?

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Aida TORRES PÉREZ
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Eu Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

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.

European Union Rights and Values in Human Health

2019 ◽  
pp. 16-51
Author(s):  
Anniek de Ruijter
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
European Union ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

This book looks at the impact of the expanding power of the EU in terms of fundamental rights and values. The current chapter lays down the framework for this analysis. Law did not always have a central role to play in the context of medicine and health. The role of law grew after the Second Word War and the Nuremberg Doctors Trials (1947), in which preventing the repetition of atrocities that were committed in the name of medicine became a guidepost for future law regarding patients’ rights and bioethics. In the period after the War, across the EU Member States, health law developed as a legal discipline in which a balance was struck in medicine and public health between law, bioethics, and fundamental rights. The role of EU fundamental rights protections in the context of public health and health care developed in relation with the growth of multilevel governance and litigation (national, international, Council of Europe, and European Union). For the analysis here, this chapter develops an EU rights and values framework that goes beyond the strictly legal and allows for a ‘normative language’ that takes into consideration fundamental rights as an expression of important shared values in the context of the European Union. The perspective of EU fundamental rights and values can demonstrate possible tensions caused by EU health policy: implications in terms of fundamental rights can show how highly sensitive national policy issues may be affected by the Member States’ participation in EU policymaking activities.

The normative framework of the EU’s commitment to human rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 79-116
Author(s):  
Chiara Altafin ◽  
Karin Lukas ◽  
Manfred Nowak
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Double Standards ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Normative Framework ◽  
The Eu

The chapter presents and assesses the various normative layers—domestic, European, regional, international—on which the European Union’s (EU’s) commitment to human rights is built. It analyses the interaction of EU primary law, general principles of law derived from constitutional traditions of Member States, and international human rights law, including relevant regional instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Social Charter, and the Istanbul Convention. It is contended that, despite an impressive and pioneering normative framework on human rights, the EU currently faces a number of challenges that call for a strong stance on human rights realisation in all areas of its competence and influence. Enduring deficiencies in the relevant normative framework include the absence of a fully fledged EU competence to legislate in the area of human rights protection and the application of ‘double standards’ in the EU’s approach to human rights internally and externally, leading to a deep divide between internal and external policies guided by starkly different logics. Further areas of concern include the difficulties of the Charter of Fundamental Rights implementation in view of EU institutions and Member States’ competencies, which have become particularly apparent in the EU’s response to the Eurozone crisis and the arising tensions between EU and Member States’ austerity measures, as well as the uneven nature of the EU and Member States’ human rights obligations with regard to the international legal framework, leading to gaps and overlaps.

Case C-233/18 Zubair Haqbin v. Federaal Agentschap Voor de Opvang van Asielzoekers (C.J.E.U.)

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 694-707
Author(s):  
Justine N. Stefanelli
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Violent Behavior ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
First Time ◽  
The Eu

In its preliminary ruling in Haqbin, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) ruled for the first time on whether the EU Reception Conditions Directive 2013/33 (RCD) prohibits Member States from withdrawing material reception conditions in the event of a breach of the rules of accommodation centers, or in the context of violent behavior within those centers. In holding in the negative, the CJEU affirmed the important role played by fundamental rights in the EU's asylum system.

11. Human Rights in the EU

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Member States ◽  
Political Conditionality ◽  
Development Policies ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Community Legal Order ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Academic Debate

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 discusses EU human rights law, and the way in which the ECJ developed fundamental rights as part of the Community legal order. The analysis includes the drafting of the EU Charter of Rights, and its application in the post-Lisbon world in which it is legally binding on the EU and on Member States when they act in the scope of EU law. The EU has gradually integrated human rights concerns into a range of its policies. The EU actively promotes its ‘human rights and democratization’ policy in many countries around the world, and uses human rights clauses in its international trade and development policies. It has imposed a human rights-based ‘political conditionality’ on candidate Member States, and claims to integrate human rights concerns throughout its common foreign and security policy.

scholarly journals “Same Legal Value as the Treaties”? Rank, Primacy, and Direct Effects of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 771-798 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucia Serena Rossi
Keyword(s):  
Direct Effect ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Direct Effects ◽  
Member States ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

Article 6 of the TEU states that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights “shall have the same legal value as the Treaties.” This Article investigates the Charter's real status in the EU legal order. To this end, the Charter's force will be analyzed relative to EU institutions, the Member States, and individuals. The resulting picture will enable consideration of the Charter's place in the EU hierarchy of norms, as well as the question of its primacy and direct effect.

ASYLUM PROCEDURE IN LATVIA - A PART OF COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (7) ◽  
pp. 7
Author(s):  
Iveta Adijāne
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Method ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
The Common ◽  
Asylum Procedure ◽  
Domain Information ◽  
The Eu

The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) conditions apply to Latvia. Development of the Common European Asylum System impacts Latvian legislation and has an effect on the work of judicial institutions. Any European Union scale change affects Latvia. Common European Asylum System conditions in Latvia are being met by direct implementation of the EU instructions. Well-considered position and evaluation of CEAS conditions according to Latvian interests is necessary. Goal of this article is to review demands of the Common European Asylum System towards the member states as well as concordance of the Latvian asylum procedure with conditions of the Common European Asylum System. Objectives of this research is to examine development of legislation in the EU and Latvia, to analyse and compare current legislation of the asylum procedure in the EU member states as well as to analyse impact of CEAS towards the asylum procedure in Latvia. In order to achieve objectives, following research methods were used: monographic research of theoretical and empirical sources in order to analyse and evaluate various asylum domain information, analytical method in order to acquire legislative content and verities, comparative method in order to discover differences in legislation of asylum procedure in the EU countries, systemic method in order to disclose interconnections in legislation, descriptive statistics method and correlation analysis in order to analyse process of the asylum procedure and determine interconnections in the asylum procedure time frame between legislation and practical instances in EU countries.

If You Are Not Part of the Solution, You Are the Problem: Article 37 of the EU Charter as a Defence for Climate Change and Environmental Measures in Investor-State Arbitrations – Joint 2nd Prize Winner Essay competition 2020

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 265-295
Author(s):  
Florence Humblet ◽  
Kabir Duggal
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Environmental Measures ◽  
The Eu

Climate change is severely impacting the survival of humankind on earth. In the European Union (EU), the Charter of Fundamental Rights (EU Charter) codifies environmental protection as part of the EU’s corpus of fundamental rights protection and states that “a high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the policies of the EU and ensured in accordance with the principle of sustainable development”. By virtue of this article, the EU has elevated environmental protection to the level of constitutionality. Environmental concerns have played a critical role in investor-state arbitration. This article submits that Article 37 of the EU Charter might be a viable defence for Member States of the EU (Member States) that adopt climate change and environmental measures. Such defence would not consist of a jurisdictional challenge based on the Achmea decision but of a defence based on the applicable law which protects the notion of sustainable investment enshrined in the applicable international investment agreement. Article 37 of the EU Charter could, therefore, operate a powerful tool to foster environmental protection in investor-state disputes and, therefore, address one of the most widespread complaints in the backlash against investor-state arbitration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document