The Court of Justice of the EU, privacy and data protection: Judge-made law as a leitmotif in fundamental rights protection

2017 ◽  
pp. 10-31
Author(s):  
Maja Brkan
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

The Fight against Terrorism, Fundamental Rights and the EU Courts: The Unsolved Conundrum

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 269-295
Author(s):  
Eva Nanopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Public Security ◽  
The Public ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Conflicting Demands ◽  
The Eu

AbstractUsing the example of anti-terrorism measures, this chapter looks at the difficulties experienced by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in reconciling the conflicting demands of fundamental rights protection and public security. It shows that under the current arrangements, the CJEU cannot have regard to information which has not gone through a proper adversarial hearing, even in cases where disclosure of the relevant information will jeopardise the public interest. The chapter thus envisages the possibility for reform. It examines, in particular, the special advocate procedure and the sort of difficulties that its transposition in the EU context would give rise to.

scholarly journals An approach to today’s EU constitutionality control – understanding this EU inter-jurisdictional phenomenon in light of effective judicial protection

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-124
Author(s):  
Joana Covelo de Abreu
Keyword(s):  
National Level ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Level ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
The Eu

Under today’s European constitutional demands, effective judicial protection sets the tone concerning potential jurisdictional instruments able to act as constitutionality control mechanisms. Inter-jurisdictionality stands for different and complementary jurisdictional systems living togetherin the same space and it aims to understand how their reflexive interactions can be maintained to promote effective judicial protection. Both the infringement procedure and the preliminary ruling act as constitutional controls. The first allows the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to evaluate the incompatibility of national solutions/omissions with EU law but, to meet its full effectiveness, widening legitimate parties needs to be considered as well. Also, validity preliminary rulings act as a constitutional control in proceedings relating to individuals – national judges should be aware of their referring obligations to the CJEU. There are voices amongst European academia that advocate a new constitutional procedure to promote fundamental rights’ protection. However, the main formulas highlighted rely on solutions tested on the national level which can compromise their efficacy. We perceive an inter-jurisdictional paradigm as the proper approach since it will allowthe promotion of effective judicial protection at a constitutional level as a new EU dogmatically thought phenomenon. This is to ensure judicial integration can be perceived as a reality, engaged in pursuing the future of the EU.

Composing Europe’s Fundamental Rights Area: A Case for Discursive Pluralism

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 210-246
Author(s):  
Louise HALLESKOV STORGAARD
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Normative Basis ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis article offers a perspective on how the objective of a strong and coherent European protection standard pursued by the fundamental rights amendments of the Lisbon Treaty can be achieved, as it proposes a discursive pluralistic framework to understand and guide the relationship between the EU Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. It is argued that this framework – which is suggested as an alternative to the EU law approach to the Strasbourg system applied by the CJEU in Opinion 2/13 and its Charter-based case law – has a firm doctrinal, case law and normative basis. The article ends by addressing three of the most pertinent challenges to European fundamental rights protection through the prism of the proposed framework.

scholarly journals Between Discursive and Exclusive Autonomy – Opinion 2/13, the Protection of Fundamental Rights and the Autonomy of EU Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 168-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benedikt H. PIRKER ◽  
Stefan REITEMEYER
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Foreseeable Future ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

AbstractEU Opinion 2/13 on the accession of the EU to the ECHR was a landmark decision of the Court of Justice of the EU both for fundamental rights protection in the EU and the autonomy of the EU legal order. The present article argues that two approaches would have been possible, following either a discursive or an exclusive understanding of autonomy. As a thorough discussion of the Opinion shows, the Court chose the latter pathway, with detrimental consequences for the foreseeable future.

scholarly journals The Court of Justice of the European Union’s Mutual Trust Journey in EU Criminal Law: From a Presumption to (Room for) Rebuttal

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 468-495
Author(s):  
Auke Willems
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Eu

AbstractMore than any other EU institution, the Court of Justice of the European Union has upheld the presumption of mutual trust in EU criminal law cooperation. Surprisingly though, despite mutual trust’s centrality in the Court’s jurisprudence, it has long not qualified nor properly elaborated the notion of trust, but rather held on to its presumed existence based on a high level of fundamental rights protection throughout the Union. This article will assess the important role of the Court in establishing, upholding and ultimately qualifying the trust presumption in the EU criminal justice context. Along the lines of a number of key cases, the narrative of a strong defence of (the presumption of) mutual trust appears, but also of an evolution toward more room for rebuttal in recent cases. This signals the increased weight given to fundamental rights protection in the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.

scholarly journals ASSESSING THE IMPLICATIONS OF SCHREMS II FOR EU–US DATA FLOW

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Maria Helen Murphy
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Data Flow ◽  
Data Transfer ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constant Flow ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

Abstract With the constant flow of data across jurisdictions, issues regarding conflicting laws and the protection of rights arise. This article considers the EU–US data transfer relationship in the aftermath of the decision in Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland and Maximillian Schrems where the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) invalidated an EU–US data transfer agreement for the second time in just five years. This judgment continues the line of cases emphasising the high value the Court places on securing EU personal data in accordance with EU data protection standards and fundamental rights. This article assesses the implications of the ruling for the vulnerable EU–US data transfer relationship.

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.

Article 51 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights from the Perspective of the National Judge

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 53-85
Author(s):  
Petr Mádr
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Track Record ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Academic Debate

This article contributes to the growing scholarship on the national application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights ('the Charter') by assessing what challenges national courts face when dealing with Article 51 of the Charter, which sets out the Charter's material scope of application. In keeping with this aim, the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) – with its general formulas, abstract guidance and implementation categories – is discussed strictly from the perspective of the national judge. The article then presents the findings of a thorough study of the case law of the Czech Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) and evaluates this Court's track record when assessing the Charter's applicability. National empirical data of that kind can provide valuable input into the CJEU-centred academic debate on the Charter's scope of application.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document