scholarly journals Ferreira, Nuno and Venturi, Denise (2017) Tell me what you see and I’ll tell you if you’re gay: analysing the advocate general’s opinion in case C-473/16, F v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal.

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuno Ferreira ◽  
Denise Venturi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Knowledge ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Institutions ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Hungarian Society ◽  
European Court ◽  
Poor Treatment

Hungary has been in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons for quite a while. From legislation targeting ‘foreign-operating universities’ to border walls to keep refugees from entering Hungarian territory, the populist right-wing government of Viktor Orban has been sparking outrage in many sectors of Hungarian society, and the European institutions. The most recent reason for alarm again relates to migration and refugees, an area of widespread criticism of Hungarian authorities. Building on extremely hostile policies towards refugees that have been admonished by both the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Hungarian authorities now intend to resort to highly dubious means to assess the applications of individuals claiming asylum on grounds related to their sexual orientation. It was already public knowledge that this category of claimants was subjected to poor treatment by the Hungarian authorities, but recent events suggest that the authorities have reached a new low.

scholarly journals A tale of two Europes: How conflating the European Court of Human Rights with the European Union exacerbates Euroscepticism

2021 ◽  
pp. 136914812110485
Author(s):  
Zoë Jay
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The Other ◽  
Media Discourse ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Specific Effects ◽  
European Institutions ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

This article focuses on the phenomenon of conflating the European Court of Human Rights with the European Court of Justice and European Union in British political and media discourse. Scholars of the European Court of Human Rights and Euroscepticism often acknowledge conflation, but rarely specify the forms it takes or its specific effects on British perceptions of the legitimacy of European institutions. This article identifies three main forms of conflation: muddled conflation, ambiguous conflation, and deliberate conflation. It shows that conflation can be both a symptom of deeper Eurosceptic disregard for the roles and purposes of distinct European institutions, and a deliberate rhetorical tool, intended to weaken the legitimacy of separate institutions by tying criticisms of one to the other. The article demonstrates that conflating the different Europes contributes to the persistence of Strasbourgsceptic narratives in the British political sphere by exacerbating pre-existing concerns and providing additional opportunities to raise them in public.

scholarly journals Castaño avoids a clash between the ECtHR and the CJEU, but erodes Soering. Thinking human rights transnationally

2020 ◽  
pp. 203228442097974
Author(s):  
Sibel Top ◽  
Paul De Hert
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Union Member ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
European Union Member States

This article examines the changing balance established by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) between human rights filters to extradition and the obligation to cooperate and how this shift of rationale brought the Court closer to the position of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in that respect. The article argues that the ECtHR initially adopted a position whereby it prioritised human rights concerns over extraditions, but that it later nuanced that approach by establishing, in some cases, an obligation to cooperate to ensure proper respect of human rights. This refinement of its position brought the ECtHR closer to the approach adopted by the CJEU that traditionally put the obligation to cooperate above human rights concerns. In recent years, however, the CJEU also backtracked to some extent from its uncompromising attitude on the obligation to cooperate, which enabled a convergence of the rationales of the two Courts. Although this alignment of the Courts was necessary to mitigate the conflicting obligations of European Union Member States towards both Courts, this article warns against the danger of making too many human rights concessions to cooperation in criminal matters.

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.

6. Finding cases

2021 ◽  
pp. 114-136
Author(s):  
Emily Finch ◽  
Stefan Fafinski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

This chapter presents the skills needed to find cases. It first explains the meanings of case citations before moving on to discuss how to locate domestic cases. It then describes how to find decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the General Court, and the European Court of Human Rights.

5. Finding cases

Legal Skills ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Finch ◽  
Stefan Fafinski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

This chapter presents the skills needed to find cases. It first explains the meanings of case citations before moving on to discuss how to locate domestic cases. It then describes how to find decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the General Court, and the European Court of Human Rights.

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.

Ne Bis Interpretatio In Idem?The Two Faces of theNe Bis In IdemPrinciple in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Rosanò
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Regional Custom

The meaning ofidemin thene bis in idemprinciple is controversial in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In interpreting the provision of Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement, the court has emphasized the necessary requirement in the identity of the material acts while in antitrust law three requirements have been deemed necessary: (1) Identity of the facts, (2) unity of offender, and (3) unity of the legal interest protected. Despite the opinions of some Advocates General, the court has confirmed different interpretations of the same principle, depending on differences of the legal scope in question. A few years ago, however, the European Court of Human Rights proclaimed the criterion based on the identity of the material acts as the most suitable. This might push the Court of Justice of the European Union to correct its position in the antitrust field. Should this happen, this adjustment might serve as grounds to recognize the existence of a regional custom concerning thene bis in idemprinciple.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document