EU values reflection in ECtHR case law

2021 ◽  
pp. 23-29
Author(s):  
Dmytro Boichuk ◽  
Kateryna Torhashova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

The article focuses on the importance of the European Union's values in the development of the legal system of the member states of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and for the functioning of the European Union, further integration processes and their reflection in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The ideological interpretation and practical implementation of these decisions are reflected.

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 ŽMOGAUS TEISIŲ APSAUGA EUROPOJE IR EUROPOS SĄJUNGOS PRISIJUNGIMAS PRIE ŽMOGAUS TEISIŲ IR PAGRINDINIŲ LAISVIŲ APSAUGOS KONVENCIJOS

Teisė ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 92 ◽  
pp. 109-125
Author(s):  
Gintarė Pažereckaitė ◽  
Jevgenija Vienažindytė
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Current State ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

Straipsnyje analizuojama žmogaus teisių apsauga Europoje, garantuojama pagal Europos Sąjungos ir Europos Tarybos (konkrečiai – Žmogaus teisių ir pagrindinių laisvių apsaugos konvencijos) teisines sistemas. Nagrinėjama dviejų regioninių teismo institucijų (Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismo ir Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismo) praktika ir kai kurios žmogaus teisių apsaugos užtikrinimo Europoje problemos. Straipsnyje vertinamas galimas Europos Sąjungos prisijungimo prie Žmogaus teisių ir pagrindinių laisvių apsaugos konvencijos poveikis žmogaus teisių apsaugai Europoje. Analizuojamos Prisijungimo sutarties projekte siūlomos procesinės taisyklės ir galimi jų trūkumai. Galiausiai pateikiamos įžvalgos dėl šiuo metu esamo žmogaus teisių apsaugos lygio Europoje pakankamumo, kurios iš dalies galėtų būti pagrindas vertinti Europos Sąjungos prisijungimo prie Žmogaus teisių ir pagrindinių laisvių apsaugos konvencijos poreikį. The article analyses human rights protection in Europe guaranteed in the legal systems of the European Union and the Council of Europe (i.e. the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms). It examines case law of two regional judicial institutions (European Court of Human Rights and Court of Justice of the European Union) and certain problems of human rights protection in Europe. The article also assesses what impact the European Union accession to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms could have on the human rights protection in Europe; and analyses rules and procedures proposed in the draft Accession agreement, and their possible flaws. Finally, views on the current state of human rights protection in Europe are presented, which in a way gives a basis to question the need for the European Union to accede to the Convention.

The right to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuliya Samovich
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Educational Organizations ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Procedure ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Protection

The manual is devoted to making individual complaints to the European Court of human rights: peculiarities of realization of the right to appeal, conditions of admissibility and the judicial procedure of the European Court of Human Rights. The author analyses some “autonomous concepts” used in the court's case law and touches upon the possibility of limiting the right to judicial protection. The article deals with the formation and development of the individual's rights to international judicial protection, as well as the protection of human rights in universal quasi-judicial international bodies and regional judicial institutions of the European Union and the Organization of American States. This publication includes a material containing an analysis of recent changes in the legal regulation of the Institute of individual complaints. The manual is recommended for students of educational organizations of higher education, studying in the areas of bachelor's and master's degree “Jurisprudence”.

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 Problems of the Russian Legislstion Improvement and Practice of its Applicatoin Based on the Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (in the Spfere of the Administrative Coersion)

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 30-39
Author(s):  
Viatcheslav Viatcheslavovich Gavrilov ◽  
◽  
Olga Eugenievna Shishkina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal System ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

The article is devoted to the issues of the implementation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights into the Russian legal system. The sphere of administrative coercion and administrative liability was chosen as a practical material for this research. The authors stress the role and importance of the ECHR practice for the improvement of Russian legislation, outline problems and difficulties of the implementation of the ECHR judgments in this sphere.

scholarly journals The Limits of Agencification in the European Union

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 1223-1255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miroslava Scholten ◽  
Marloes van Rijsbergen
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Road ◽  
European Court ◽  
On The Road ◽  
The Eu

Although not explicitly regulated by the EU treaties, EU agencies not only exist but also have increased in number and power. In addition, while EU agencies may exercise very similar functions to those of the Commission, Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) do not list agencies among the possible authors of non-legislative acts. The existing situation raises the questions of the extent to which the ongoing agencification in the EU is legitimate and what its limits are. This article addresses these questions in the light of the old and new Treaties and case law, including the just releasedESMA-shortsellingcase. It shows that while the Lisbon Treaty made a few steps forward on the road of legitimizing EU agencies and delegating important powers to them, the scope of powers that EU agencies can have remains unclear. In this respect, the European Court of Justice's lenient approach in theESMA-shortsellingcase is unfortunate because it neither clarifies the issue nor pushes the Union Legislator and the Member States to address it. Consequently, in the absence of clear limits, further agencification is likely to persist at the risk of increasing the democratic legitimacy deficit and remaining accountability gaps.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document