scholarly journals Fundamental Social Rights Protection and Covid-19 in the EU: Constraints & Possibilities

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 103-117
Author(s):  
Barbara Safradin ◽  
Sybe de Vries ◽  
Simona de Heer
Keyword(s):  
Social Rights ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
The Eu

The ECHR, the EU and the Weakness of Social Rights Protection at the European Level

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 1833-1861 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roderic O'Gorman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
European Court ◽  
Reporting Mechanism ◽  
The Eu

Ever since the conceptual division of rights into three separate categories; civil, political and social, the legal status of social rights has been controversial. This divergence in views is illustrated by the decision of the Council of Europe in 1950 to protect civil and political rights through a judicial format where adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was ensured by the European Court of Human Rights, whereas social rights were addressed separately through the European Social Charter (“Social Charter”), with merely a reporting mechanism to the European Committee of Social Rights.

An Empty Shell? The Protection of Social Rights of Third-Country Workers in the eu after the Single Permit Directive

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 210-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Beduschi
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Political Will ◽  
Member States ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Integration Of Immigrants ◽  
Legal Immigration ◽  
Final Text ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Third Country Nationals

This article critically assesses the effectiveness of third-country nationals’ social rights protection in the eu following the adoption of Directive 2011/98/eu (‘the Single Permit Directive’). This instrument establishes a single permit for work and residence and sets up a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State. This article argues that despite being an important instrument allowing for a better protection of social rights of third-country nationals, the directive still reveals significant inconsistencies. First, due to difficult negotiations at the Council, the final text of the directive maintains the fragmented approach to legal immigration, excluding several categories of third-country nationals from its personal scope. Second, it also allows Member States the opportunity to impose important restrictions on social rights while implementing the directive. Finally, these restrictions can have considerable implications for the integration of immigrants in the host Member State. Accordingly, the argument is advanced that in reality the protection of third-country workers’ social rights in the eu still largely depends on the Member States’ political will.

scholarly journals Protection of Social Rights as a Permament Challenge for the European Union

2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 109-143
Author(s):  
Joanna Ryszka
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Significant Development ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Eu Integration ◽  
The Social ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

Social rights protection in the European Union has undergone significant development. Currently their protection is regulated by relevant treaty provisions and the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Charter), both of a primary law nature, as well as by the non-binding European Pillar of Social Rights (Pillar). The aim of the paper is the assessment of the social rights protection in the EU, and whether all social rights provided in the CFR have their counterparts in the EPSR, hence whether and in what way the EPSR assists the actual exercise of social rights provided by the CFR. Comparing the content of the above-mentioned legal instruments makes it possible to answer the question whether all social rights provided in the Charter have their counterparts in the Pillar. This can help determine whether the latter affects the implementation of the former. If the answer is in the affirmative, it can further allow for determining in what way the principles of the Pillar assist in the actual exercise of social rights provided by the Charter. This is very important taking into account the need for an ongoing response to unforeseen threats, like for example COVID-19. The social aspects of EU integration thus are and will remain a subject of interest in the nearest future.

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.

Fundamental rights protection within the EU governance through the CJEU's jurisprudence

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Μαρία-Νεφέλη Βακουλή
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Judicial Activism ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Eu Governance ◽  
The Eu

Η παρούσα διατριβή αναλύει το ζήτημα της προστασίας των θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων της ΕΕ με ειδική αναφορά στον ρόλο του Δικαστηρίου της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης (ΔΕΕ) και της νομολογίας του στα πλαίσια της ευρωπαϊκής διακυβέρνησης. Η νομολογία του ΔΕΕ περί την προστασία των θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων αναλύεται με επίκεντρο το Δικαστήριο ως θεσμικό όργανο της ΕΕ και διερευνάται ο ρόλος του ΔΕΕ στην επίτευξη της ευρωπαϊκής ολοκλήρωσης. Εξετάζει την αντιμετώπιση από το ΔΕΕ των ζητημάτων περί το άσυλο με ιδιαίτερη έμφαση στη νομολογία μετά τη Λισαβόνα. Επιπλέον, η παρούσα διατριβή εξετάζει τον ρόλο του ΔΕΕ στα πλαίσια σύγχρονων ζητημάτων σε ευρωπαϊκό και διεθνές επίπεδο, όπως η πρόσφατη απόφαση του Γερμανικού Συνταγματικού Δικαστηρίου (PSPP judgement), η Κοινή Δήλωση ΕΕ-Τουρκίας και η προσχώρηση της ΕΕ στην ΕΣΔΑ. Το Μέρος Ι, «Θεμελιώδη δικαιώματα της ΕΕ και ΔΕΕ», προσδιορίζει το αντικείμενο της έρευνας και θέτει το επιλεγμένο θεωρητικό πλαίσιο. Αναλύει την προστασία των θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων της ΕΕ από το ΔΕΕ μέσω της θεωρίας του Ιστορικού θεσμισμού. Επικεντρώνεται στον θεσμικό ρόλο του Δικαστηρίου στη θέσπιση της έννομης τάξης της ΕΕ. Η Συνθήκη της Λισαβόνας και ο Χάρτης των Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων της ΕΕ αναλύονται ως κρίσιμες στιγμές στην πορεία της νομολογίας του Δικαστηρίου. Αναλύεται το θεμελιώδες δικαίωμα στο άσυλο όπως αυτό προστατεύεται από το άρθρο 18 του Χάρτη Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων της ΕΕ. Το Μέρος II, «Προστασία των Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων σε καιρό κρίσης», πραγματεύεται την δικαστική προστασία των θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων της ΕΕ στο πλαίσιο της προσφυγικής/μεταναστευτικής κρίσης και παράσχει μια λεπτομερή περιγραφή της κρίσης ως φαινομένου με ισχυρή δυναμική που δύναται να επηρεάσει τη διαδικασία της ευρωπαϊκής ολοκλήρωσης. Η διατριβή περιλαμβάνει ολοκληρωμένη επισκόπηση της νομολογίας του Δικαστηρίου βάσει έρευνας μέσω της πλατφόρμας EUR-Lex αναφορικά με τη νομοθεσία για το ΚΕΣΑ και τον κανονισμό του Δουβλίνου στα πλαίσιο της διαδικασίας για το προδικαστικό ερώτημα. Εισάγονται οι έννοιες του «ισορροπημένου δικαστικού ακτιβισμού» (balanced judicial activism) και της «αιτιολογημένης δικαστικής παθητικότητας» (justifiable judicial passivism) που θέτουν τα όρια στην λήψη αποφάσεων του ΔΕΕ. Και για τις δύο έννοιες, ο «κίνδυνος» για την ευρωπαϊκή ολοκλήρωση είναι ζωτικής σημασίας. Τέλος, γίνεται αναφορά στη δικαστική αλληλεπίδραση μεταξύ του ΔΕΕ και του ΕΔΔΑ και τίθεται το ερώτημα εάν η αλληλεπίδραση αυτή αρκεί για να εξασφαλιστεί η συνοχή στην προστασία των θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων στην Ευρώπη ή αν απαιτείται το επόμενο βήμα, ήτοι η προσχώρηση της ΕΕ στην ΕΣΔΑ.

Market development of the economy of the eu and Ukraine: asymmetry and ways of overcoming it

2021 ◽  
pp. 23-33
Author(s):  
Yevhen Redzyuk
Keyword(s):  
Business Environment ◽  
State Regulation ◽  
Market Development ◽  
Low Carbon ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Property Rights Protection ◽  
Low Efficiency ◽  
Cis Countries ◽  
The Eu

The goal of this article is to develop practical, scientific and methodological recommendations to improve the market development of Ukraine and reduce the divergence of its economy in relation to the EU economy. Research methodology includes: system-structural and comparative studies (to understand the logic of the functioning of modern market institutions in Ukraine and Europe); monographic analysis (in the study of approaches to improve the market development of the Ukrainian economy); statistical and economic analysis (when carrying out a rating assessment in relation to economic freedoms and competitiveness of the Ukrainian economy). Scientific novelty: it was revealed that the state of market development of the Ukrainian economy is significantly lower not only in comparison with the EU countries, many CIS countries, but also lags behind the overwhelming major- ity of countries in the world. The reason for this is the low efficiency of the ju- dicial and law enforcement system; weakness and archaism of state regulation of the business environment; monopolization and oligarchization of the economy, non-transparent approaches to the privatization of assets in Ukraine; “Black” and “gray” land market; violation of customs procedures and registrations, which sig- nificantly saturate the markets of Ukraine with counterfeit and smuggled goods. In contrast, EU countries are pursuing policies that promote asset and property rights protection, stimulate job creation and economic growth by creating a busi- ness-friendly climate, as well as focusing on innovation and related infrastructure aid funds. Conclusions: a proactive state policy is needed in the formation of ef- fective regulatory institutions in Ukraine, in anti-corruption and economic reforms, in reducing the level of monopolization and oligarchization of markets; also priva- tization stimulating investment and innovation; transition from extensive to in- tensive management methods; embedding of domestic products into external value chains; increasing investment in domestic infrastructure; priority in the develop- ment of small and medium-sized businesses; systemic focus on increasing the productivity of the economy; the emergence of new businesses in a low-carbon and environmentally friendly economy. Key words: economies of the EU and Ukraine, market development, European economic integration, world economy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document