scholarly journals Mechanism to protect human rights from illegal activities of FRONTEX within the EU

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
А. O. Hnitii
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Causal Link ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Complex Nature ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Illegal Activities ◽  
Operational Activities ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
The Eu

The article is devoted to the study of mechanisms to protection human rights from illegal activities of FRONTEX within the EU. The author notes that with the adoption of Regulation 2019/1896 the mandate of the Agency was significantly expanded, including by giving its staff executive powers. At the same time, the Agency has negative and positive human rights obligations, which stipulate that FRONTEX staff must not only refrain from committing violations, but also take all possible measures to ensure the fundamental rights of each participant in joint operations. However, the complex nature and lack of transparency in the Agency's operational activities increase the risk of serious incidents. In view of this, an important guarantee of respect for fundamental rights is the development of effective protection mechanisms. The article analyzes the grounds and procedure for appealing to the European Ombudsman, the European Court of Justice, as well as the use by victims of a complaint mechanism within the Agency. Attention is drawn to the shortcomings of out-of-court mechanisms for the protection of human rights, primarily due to the recommendatory nature of the conclusions adopted as a result of complaints. The functioning of the internal mechanism for consideration of individual complaints by the Agency is positively assessed, but attention is also paid to the need to increase its autonomy and develop an appellate procedure for appealing decisions. It is concluded that the most effective remedy within the EU for victims of misconduct as a result of FRONTEX's unlawful act is the Court of Justice. The use of this mechanism requires a more careful collection of evidence to prove the causal link between unlawful act and harmful consequences, which is a difficult task for migrants who have been victims of violations.

Composing Europe’s Fundamental Rights Area: A Case for Discursive Pluralism

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 210-246
Author(s):  
Louise HALLESKOV STORGAARD
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Normative Basis ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis article offers a perspective on how the objective of a strong and coherent European protection standard pursued by the fundamental rights amendments of the Lisbon Treaty can be achieved, as it proposes a discursive pluralistic framework to understand and guide the relationship between the EU Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. It is argued that this framework – which is suggested as an alternative to the EU law approach to the Strasbourg system applied by the CJEU in Opinion 2/13 and its Charter-based case law – has a firm doctrinal, case law and normative basis. The article ends by addressing three of the most pertinent challenges to European fundamental rights protection through the prism of the proposed framework.

scholarly journals Protecting Economic Interests or the Right to Life? Perception of the European Court of Justice on Emergency Medical Services1

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 197-209
Author(s):  
Jenna Uusitalo
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Full Potential ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Emergency Medical ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Abstract European Union (EU) was founded to strengthen European integration through purely economic cooperation while disregarding human rights. However, throughout its existence the EU has been challenged to take a stand on human rights. In fact, the application and promotion of human rights has increased significantly in recent years, especially during the last 15 years, mainly thanks to the establishment of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in 2000. Through the selected cases concerning emergency medical services, this paper examines how the arguments of the European Court of Justice have eventually been shifting from purely economic ideology towards more human rights based approach. However, the article essentially argues that the full potential of human rights to support the claims that are inherently economic in their nature has not yet been utilized and therefore the essential aim of the Charter to strengthen human rights protection in the EU remains unachieved.

The Rebirth of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 283-309
Author(s):  
Steve Peers
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Treaty Of Lisbon ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Effect ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

AbstractSince the conferral of binding legal effect on the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Court of Justice has taken an active role in developing the Charter as the leading source of human rights rules in the EU legal order. While the Court has begun to clarify some important points relating to the Charter, a number of significant issues still need to be addressed.

14. The European Union

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Berthold Rittberger
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines how the European Union acquired distinctive constitution-like features. It begins with a discussion of three routes to constitutionalization: the first is through changes in the EU's primary law; the second focuses on ‘in between’ constitutionalization; and the third leads directly to the European Court of Justice and its jurisprudence. The chapter proceeds by discussing two developments that have shaped the EU constitutional order almost since the beginning: the emergence of a body of EU law constituting a set of higher-order legal rules, and the consolidation of the constitutional principle of representative democracy. It explains how the supremacy and direct effect of EU law, as well as the EU court's concern with the protection of fundamental rights, helped transform the EU into a constitutional polity. It also considers how the extension of the legislative, budgetary, and other powers of the European Parliament animated the constitutional principle.

Between Informal Dialogue and Official Criticism

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 409-420
Author(s):  
Anna Podolska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Proceedings

Abstract There are various forms of jurisdictional dialogue. In addition to drawing from the case law of another court or seeking direct assistance of such another court in passing the judgment, we can notice in practice situations when by issuing a verdict the courts are communicating with each other. The rulings of the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the free movement of judgments in the European Union and protection of fundamental rights are the example of such activities. Each of these bodies was interpreting separately the extent to which the mechanisms of recognising and executing the judgments may interfere with the level of protection of fundamental rights. A common conclusion concerns assigning the priority to protection of fundamental rights, while individual bodies were determining differently the standards of such protection. The analysed judgments can be construed as a communication between these bodies. Although no direct discussion takes place between these courts, this is still a form of interaction which affects the development of the case law and understanding of the boundaries of mutual recognition of judgments and protection of human rights within judicial proceedings.

scholarly journals La tutela judicial de los derechos fundamentales en el ámbito de aplicación nacional del derecho de la Unión Europea : recientes acotaciones del Tribunal de Justicia y del Tribunal ConstitucionalEspañol = The judicial protection of fundamental rights in the sphere of the national application of EU law : recent remarks by the Court of Justice and by the Spanish Constitutional Court

2013 ◽  
pp. 391
Author(s):  
Juan Ignacio Ugartemendia Eceizabarrena
Keyword(s):  
National Level ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
El Sistema ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
The Eu

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.

Court of Justice of the eu Rules Collective and Inaccessible Electrical Metres Discriminate against Roma: chez Razpredelenie Bulgaria ad v. Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia (C-83/14)

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claude Cahn
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Racial Discrimination ◽  
Significant Contribution ◽  
Ethnic Origin ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Indirect Discrimination ◽  
Current Article ◽  
The Eu

The judgment of 16 July 2015 is ecj’s first substantive ruling in a case concerning racial discrimination against Roma. This is noteworthy, given the centrality of Roma to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the area of discrimination (on the European Court of Human Rights, Roma and racial discrimination, see C. Cahn (2015), ‘Triple Helix: The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, Roma and Racial Discrimination’, in: Claude Cahn, Human Rights, State Sovereignty and Medical Ethics, Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, pp. 106–148.). The ecj ruling in the chez case is important for a number of reasons, including for recognizing that the ban on discrimination by association applies also to cases of indirect discrimination. Its most significant contribution however is its reflections on the role of stigma in driving discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin. Also of note is its rejection of a number of approaches used in national law – in Bulgaria and elsewhere – as incompatible with European Union anti-discrimination law. The judgment is among the most important ecj rulings to date on discrimination. The current article discusses some of the noteworthy aspects of the case.

Effectiveness of EU law and protection of fundamental rights

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosaria Sicurella
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Critical View ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Significant Step ◽  
Principle Of Legality

The decision of the Court of Justice in the M.A.S. and M.B. case marks a very significant step forward in the Taricco saga. It clearly shows the intention of the European Court to tone down the confrontation with the Italian Constitutional Court, while at the same time maintaining the most relevant achievement of the decision in the Taricco case, that is to say the fact to consider Article 325 TFEU as having direct effect. The author expresses quite a critical view on the solution adopted by the ECJ which finally results in a sort of “flexibilization” of the principle of legality at EU level in order to meet some of the claims by the Italian Constitutional Court. In the author's opinion, such a solution risks to undermine the overall coherence and soundness of the protection of fundamental rights at EU level, although it can appear at a first glance to boost the legality principle. A better solution could have been to develop a different reasoning relying on rights in the Charter other that the nullum crimen principle, and avoid to touch at the well-established scope of this principle as established in Article 49 Charter and also in Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document