scholarly journals ADVISORY OPINION AND PRELIMINARY RULING PROCEDURE – A COMPARATIVE AND CONTEXTUAL NOTE

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 289-308
Author(s):  
Marija Daka
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
National Court ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
European Court

The apropos of this article is Additional Protocol No. 16 complementing to the European Convention on Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms that recently came into force. This paper presents the main common and differing elements of two non-contentious procedures before supranational courts. The advisory opinion procedure of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the preliminary ruling procedure marked by unprecedented success before the Court of Justice of the European Union, -as at least prima facie- similar types of proceedings. The paper also analyses cross-cutting issues arising from the application of both procedures in the same case arising before designated national court or tribunal. Although the purpose of the advisory opinion is to achieve and maintain efficiency bearing in mind that the ECtHR is victim of its own success the paper outlines some of serious doubts and assumptions whether in current format and in foreseeable future this purpose will be achieved. Furthermore, the paper also takes a closer look at the procedural aspects of the first advisory opinion delivered by ECtHR given its importance as we can draw at least some conclusions on the functioning of this type of procedure. Lastly, the paper -in comparative spirit- also refers to the relationship of the ECHR and the European Union Law as the two main trustees within the European multilevel system of rights protection.

scholarly journals Refl ections on the Principle of Equal Treatment in EU Law and the Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-23
Author(s):  
Marija Daka
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Complex Approach

The paper presents some of the most relevant aspects of European nondiscrimination law established th rough European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights, looking also at the evolution of the norms and milestones of case-law on equal treatment within the two systems. The paper gives an overview of the non-discrimination concept as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union and by the European Court of Human Rights. We examine the similar elements but also give insight into conceptual differences between the two human rights regimes when dealing with equal treatment. The differences mainly stem from the more complex approach taken by EU law although, based on analysed norms, cases, and provisions, the aspects of equal treatment in EU law are largely consistent with the practice of the ECtHR. Lastly, the paper briefl y places the European non-discrimination law within the multi-layered human rights system, giving some food for thought for the future potential this concept brings.

Present and Future Relations between the ECJ and the ECtHR

ICL Journal ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosmarie Doblhoff-Dier ◽  
Sandra Kusmierczyk
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
The Road ◽  
European Court ◽  
On The Road ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractBy acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the EU’s role as supranational player in the complex human rights architecture of Europe will be finally recognized. On 5 April 2013, the negotiators of the accession procedure of the European Union to the ECHR agreed on a package of draft accession instruments. Constituting a mile­stone on the road to accession, the now revised Accession Agreement still leaves vast room for discussion. By critically scrutinizing some of its modalities, this article will evaluate its impact on the human rights jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Eu­ropean Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the relationship between both courts. To this end, it will address the somewhat disproportionate involvement of the European Union in the future jurisdiction of the ECtHR and in the decision making of the Council of Europe in matters linked to the ECHR. Furthermore, it will focus on the compatibility of the Draft Agree­ment with the principle of autonomous interpretation of European Union Law: a highly rel­evant discussion for the ECJ’s future Opinion under Article 218 (11) TFEU on the compatibil­ity of the finalized draft agreement with the Treaties - the next hurdle for accession.

scholarly journals The Right to a Name Versus National Identity in the Context of eu Law: The Case of Lithuania

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 325-363
Author(s):  
Aistė Mickonytė
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
National Identity ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Minorities ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

This article examines national regulations relating to the recognition of names in official documents by focusing on Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, having particular regard to the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case of Runevič-Vardyn and Wardyn. It also assesses the potential impact that this and other cases before the ecj and the European Court of Human Rights may exert on national minorities. The recognition of names is not regulated in European Union law; thus, the eu member states may freely determine the usage of names in official documents, as the state language represents a constitutional value and part of the national identity of many eu member states. Therefore, only regulation of names that causes excessive interference with the exercise of freedom of movement or respect for private and family life is unlawful under eu law. This issue will also be discussed in light of Article 4(2) of the Treaty on the European Union, by which the ecj assesses these types of interference with the eu’s duty to respect the national identities of its member states.

European Union—accession of the Community to the European Convention on Human Rights— competence of the Community under Article 235 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community—need to amend the Treaty

1996 ◽  
Vol 90 (4) ◽  
pp. 664-669 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Hippler Bello ◽  
Juliane Kokott ◽  
Frank Hoffmeister
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Community ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
National Jurisdiction

Opinion 2/94, Accession of the Community to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 17 Hum. Rts. L.J. 51 (1996).European Court of Justice, March 28, 1996.On April 26, 1995, die Council of the European Union requested an opinion on whether accession of the European Community to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was compatible with the Treaty Establishing the European Community (Treaty). In its request, the Council of the European Union stated that no decision on opening negotiations could be taken before the Court pronounced on die compatibility of accession with the Treaty. The Council argued that, even though a text of the envisaged agreement did not yet exist, the legal issues regarding accession were sufficientiy clear for the Court to provide an advisory opinion. The Council made clear that accession should not have any effect on the reservations entered by member states, which would “continue to apply in the areas falling within national jurisdiction.” It also explained that the “Community would agree to submit to the machinery for individual petitions and inter-State applications; actions between the Community and its Member States would, however, have to be excluded in recognition of the monopoly conferred in such matters by Art. 219 of the EC Treaty on the Court of Justice.”

Narratives of Constitutionalization in the European Union Court of Justice and in the European Court of Human Rights’ Case Law

ICL Journal ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-41
Author(s):  
Maurizio Arcari ◽  
Stefania Ninatti
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
The Core ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

Abstract Constitutionalization is a peculiar process which characterizes the whole fabric of modern international law. It may however display different levels of evolution and different implications when distinct legal sub-systems are considered: this appears to be especially true at the European level, in particular in the context of the European Union law and of the European Convention on Human Rights. This article aims at unveiling the key elements of the constitutionalization process as developed by the judges sitting in Luxembourg and Strasbourg. In their relevant case law, both the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have identified the core concepts and elements lying behind the constitutionalization of their respective legal systems. The analysis of the ECJ and ECtHR case law will be divided into two different parts dealing with the internal dimension from one side, and external one from the other side. While presenting nuances and implications that are linked to the diverse degree of integration of the two legal systems, it may be submitted that the core elements of constitutionalization depicted by the Luxembourg and Strasbourg judges reveal some common patterns.

scholarly journals Identidad nacional y sistema del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Cruz Mantilla de los Ríos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Identidad Nacional ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
European Court

La identidad nacional es una categoría jurídica central del Derecho de la Unión Europea que está siendo invocada cada vez con mayor frecuencia entre la doctrina, así como entre los Tribunales Constitucionales nacionales y el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea. En estas circunstancias, está surgiendo una, aún incipiente e inmadura, literatura académica que, con base en una serie de recientes pronunciamientos del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, está interpretando si existe en el marco del sistema del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos una figura análoga. Este artículo tiene por objeto analizar en, clave comparada, la posible emergencia de dicha categoría en ese nuevo contexto jurídico. National identity is an essential legal category in European Union law which has increasingly been invoked by scholars as well as constitutional courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union. In this connection, it is emerging a, still incipient and immature, legal literature which, on the basis of a series of recent judgments coming from the European Court of Human Rights, is interpreting whether there is an analogous figure in the framework of the European Convention of Human Rights system. This article aims to analyse, in a comparative key, the possible advent of the above-mentioned figure in this new legal context.

The Past, Present and Future of the Ne Bis In Idem Dialogue between the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights: The Cases of Menci, Garlsson and Di Puma

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-84
Author(s):  
Max Vetzo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Market Abuse ◽  
The Past ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem

The cases of Menci (C-524/15), Garlsson (C-537/16) and Di Puma (C-596/16 and C-597/16) deal with the duplication of criminal and punitive administrative proceedings for the same conduct in the area of VAT and market abuse. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that this duplication of proceedings constitutes a limitation of the ne bis in idem principle of Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Charter). This infringement is only justified if the requirements of the limitation clause of Article 52(1) of the Charter are met. The judgments were highly anticipated as they constitute the response of the CJEU to the judgment in A and B v Norway delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in which the ECtHR lowered the level of protection afforded by the ne bis in idem principle of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention of Human Rights (A4P7 ECHR). While there are differences between the approaches taken by both courts, it appears that the reasoning of the CJEU in the judgments largely mirrors that of the ECtHR in A and B v Norway. This article frames the judgments in terms of the dialogue between the CJEU and ECtHR on the ne bis in idem principle. It does so chronologically, by focusing on the past, present and future of the ne bis in idem dialogue between both European courts.

Some decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of the European Union con cerning the right of asylum

10.12737/5251 ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-74
Author(s):  
Габриэлла Белова ◽  
Gabriela Belova ◽  
Мария Хаджипетрова-Лачова ◽  
Maria Hadzhipetrova-Lachova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Protective Mechanisms ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The authors analyze certain cases considered in recent years by the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of European Union in Luxembourg and associated with providing of asylum to the third country nationals. In individual EU member states there are huge differences in the procedures and protective mechanisms for asylum seekers in their access to work, as well as in the use of mechanism of forced detention. Due to accession of the EU to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the EU should comply the standards set by the Council of Europe. The authors analyze the new approach of the Strasbourg Court in decision MSS v. Belgium and Greece unlike other "Dublin" cases. They also consider certain new judgements of the Court of European Union in Luxembourg, some of which were accepted in order of urgent prejudicial production.

scholarly journals Mechanizm współpozwania w świetle przystąpienia Unii Europejskiej do Konwencji o ochronie praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 63-75
Author(s):  
Anna Moskal
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Member State ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Joint Liability ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
European System ◽  
The Eu

The co-respondent mechanism in the view of accession of the European Union to the European Convention of Human RightsFor the past seventy years there have been discussions and activities on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. The ratio of the Union’s accession to the Convention is a need to harmonize the European system of protection of individual rights. There are numerous problems and obstacles to achieve this goal created by the specific, supra-national character of the Union sui generis. It requires the introduction of unique mechanisms and procedures that would allow an international organization such as the EU to become a party to the Convention. One such procedure is provided in art. 3 of the draft agreement, the co-respondent mechanism of the European Union and the Member State in proceedings under the European Court of Human Rights. The purpose of the article is to present the allegations of the Court of Justice, assess their validity and indicate possible future solutions regarding the co-respondent mechanism. After analyzing the European Commission’s request for an opinion on the compliance of the draft agreement with community law, the CJEU considered the draft as incompatible with EU law and listed ten issues that prevented the Union from joining the Convention in the proposed form. Among them, as many as three points refer to the corresponding mechanism and concern in particular the decision on the validity of the conclusions of the Union or a Member State by the Strasbourg Court, accepting joint liability and deciding on the division of responsibility between the Union and the Member State. In the article dogmatic method was used in order to analyze three aforementioned points. Due to the provision of art. 218 par. 11 p. 2 TFEU, the Commission is bound by the opinion of the Court of Justice, and that the presented draft agreement cannot constitute an international agreement allowing for the accession of the Union to the Convention in the proposed form.

scholarly journals Who is Entitled to the Right to Respect for Family Life Under the European Union Law?

Teisė ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 110 ◽  
pp. 24-45
Author(s):  
Ingrida Danėlienė
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
National Level ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

[full article, abstract in English; abstract in Lithuanian] The article investigates the right to respect for family life, established by Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as applied and interpreted in conjunction with the right to marry and the right to found a family, laid down in Article 9 of the Charter. The standard of protection set by European Union law regarding these rights is identified by taking into account the standard of protection of the relevant rights established by the European Convention on Human Rights and the established case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Topical issues relating to the consolidation of these individual rights at the national level in the Republic of Lithuania are also addressed in the article. In doing so, an emphasis is laid on the content of the concepts of “family” and “family life” under supranational and national law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document