scholarly journals Algorytm jako informacja publiczna w prawie europejskim

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Mazur
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Access Information ◽  
The Right ◽  
Automated Decision Making

The author verifies the hypothesis concerning the possibility of using algorithms – applied in automated decision making in public sector – as information which is subject to the law governing the right to access information or the right to access official documents in European law. She discusses problems caused by the approach to these laws in the European Union, as well as lack of conformity of the jurisprudence between the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights.

Can public access to documents support the transparency of automated decision-making? The European Union law perspective

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Mazur
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Access Information ◽  
The Right ◽  
Automated Decision Making ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACT Due to the concerns which are raised regarding the impact of automated decision-making (ADM) on transparency and their potential discriminatory character, it is worth examining the possibility of applying legal measures which could serve to increase transparency of ADM systems. The article explores the possibility to consider algorithms used in ADM systems as documents subjected to the right to access documents in European Union (EU) law. It is focused on contrasting and comparing the approach based on the right to access public documents developed by the Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU) with the approach to the right to access public information as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The analysis shows discrepancies in the perspectives presented by these Courts which result in a limited scope of the right to access public documents in EU law. Pointing out these differences may provide a motivation to clarify the meaning of the right to access information in EU law, the CJEU’s approach remaining as for now incoherent. The article presents the arguments for and ways of bringing together the approaches of the CJEU and the ECtHR in the light of a decreasing level of transparency resulting from the use of ADM in the public sector. It shows that in order to ensure compliance with EU law, it is necessary to rethink the role which the right to access information plays in the human rights catalogue.

scholarly journals ECtHR jurisprudence on the matter collection of personal data

2021 ◽  
pp. 217-226
Author(s):  
Alexandru Țărnă ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

The protection and storage of personal data are clearly related to the right to respect for privacy, as guaranteed by art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The latter provision protects a whole range of rights, namely the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. The principle is that art. 8 protects personal information in respect of which an individual can legitimately hope that it will not be published or used without his or her consent. The study aims to break into the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the main objective being to identify decisions that have a fundamental impact on the doctrine and practice of personal data collection. We are aware that multiple regulations in the field of personal data collection can be deduced from the practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). However, given the direct impact of ECtHR decisions on the Republic of Moldova, we found it appropriate to summarize only this aspect. However, in subsequent studies we will address the issue of personal data protection by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The basic idea, derived from that study, is that the Moldovan authorities should adjust their legislation and practices to the standards set out by the ECtHR and thus avoid possible convictions by the European Court.

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 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 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.

La spinta verso una legislazione europea comune sul diritto di conoscere le proprie origini genetiche / The push towards common European legislation with respect to the right to know one’s genetic origins

2018 ◽  
Vol 66 (6) ◽  
pp. 747-761
Author(s):  
Gianluca Montanari Vergallo ◽  
Natale Mario Di Luca
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Legislation ◽  
Anonymous Birth ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
Genetic Origins ◽  
The Right

A venti anni dalla sua approvazione, la Convenzione di Oviedo necessita di un aggiornamento. Infatti, non affronta la questione del diritto dei bambini nati da fecondazione eterologa di conoscere l’identità dei donatori di gameti. La Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo ha recentemente stabilito che: a) il diritto di conoscere le proprie origini biologiche è tutelato dall’art. 8 della Convenzione dei diritti dell’uomo; b) tale diritto deve essere bilanciato con quello della madre biologica di rimanere anonima (c.d. parto anonimo). Al fine di trovare tale bilanciamento, una possibile soluzione consiste nel richiedere ai giudici di convocare la madre per chiederle se intende revocare l’anonimato. Se la madre ribadisce la propria originaria intenzione di rimanere sconosciuta, il Tribunale non può consentire al figlio di conoscere la sua identità. Gli autori analizzano anche altre due questioni non prese in considerazione dalla Corte europea: a) l’equilibrio tra il diritto di conoscere le proprie origini e quello dei donator di gamete all’anonimato; b) se tale diritto dei bambini nati da fecondazione eterologa vincoli i genitori legali a rivelargli le modalità del concepimento. Tali problemi e l’importanza degli interessi in gioco inducono gli autori a sostenere che la scelta di usare il citato art. 8 come criterio di giudizio non è affatto ottimale. Appare preferibile affrontare queste questioni attraverso un aggiornamento della Convenzione di Oviedo o comunque con modalità tali da arrivare ad una regolamentazione che sia uniforme all’interno dell’Unione europea. ---------- Twenty years since it was opened for signature, the Oviedo Convention needs updating. It does not deal with the issue of the donor-conceived children’s right to know the identity of the gamete donors. The European Court of Human Rights has recently stated that: a) the right to know one’s biological background is protected by article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights; b) such a right must be balanced with the biological mother’s right to anonymity (anonymous birth). In order to find such balancing, a possible solution might be to require judges to summon mothers to ask them whether they would like to reverse their decision to be anonymous. If the mother reaffirms her intention to remain unknown, the court may not allow the child to learn of her identity and contact her. The authors also analyze two other issues not taken into account by the European Court: a) the balancing between the right to know one’s origins and the gamete donors’ right to anonymity; b) whether the donor-conceived children’s right to know would make it mandatory for legal parents to disclose conception procedures. These problems and the importance of the interests at stake induce the authors to argue that the choice to keep using the above mentioned article 8 as yardstick is far from ideal. It appears to be far preferable to deal with these issues while updating the Oviedo Convention or in such a way as to incentivize the enactment of legislation that would be uniform throughout the European Union.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document