scholarly journals Alcance y límites de la participación en los asuntos públicos a través del Estatuto de la Ciudadanía Europea

2018 ◽  
pp. 99-133
Author(s):  
M.ª Jesús GARCÍA GARCÍA
Keyword(s):  
Public Affairs ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Local Elections ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Domestic Sphere ◽  
Voting Age ◽  
Legal Constraints ◽  
The Right ◽  
Committee Of The Regions ◽  
The Eu

LABURPENA: Toki-hauteskundeetan parte hartzeko sufragio aktiboaren eta pasiboaren eskubidea egikaritzeko modalitateak finkatzen dituen 94/80/EE Zuzentaraua aplikatzeari dagokionez, COM (2018) 44 (azkena), Europako Parlamentuarentzat, Kontseiluarentzat, Europako Ekonomia eta Gizarte Komitearentzat eta Eskualdeetako Lantaldearentzat Batzordeak 2018an egindako txostenaren arabera, geroz eta Europar Batasuneko herritar gehiagok baliatzen du zirkulazio librerako eta estatu kideetan bizitzeko eskubidea. Hala, 14 milioi europar dira bizilekua aldatu eta bozkatzeko adina dutenak. Hala ere, herritar horietatik gutxi batzuk baino ez daude oraindik ere toki-hauteskundeetarako erroldatuta eta horien parte-hartzea toki-hauteskundeetan benetan maila baxuetan dago. Datu horiek adierazten dute hiritar horien ehuneko altu batek ezin dituela hauteskunde eskubideak baliatu, ez jatorrizko herrialdean ezta lekualdatutako herrialdean, eta horrenbestez, horien parte-hartze demokratikoa guztiz baztertzen da. Hori bereziki paradoxikoa da EBen, demokrazia balore bezala aldarrikatzen baita eta hauteskunde eskubideei oinarrizko eskubide izaera ematen baitzaie. Lan honetan herritarren estatutuaren mugak jorratzen dira, europarrek bizileku duten herrialdeetako gai publikoetan parte hartzen dutela bermatzeko, eta jorratu egiten dira, halaber, eskubide horiek benetan baliatzeko orduan estatuen barne-esparruan eragina duten baldintza juridikoak. Eta horiek berriz formulatzea proposatu da, bizileku den herrialdeetako parte-hartze politikoarekin lotutako eskubideei dagokienez herritarren estatutuari zigilu bereizgarria eman ahal izateko. RESUMEN: El Informe de 2018 de la Comisión al Parlamento Europeo, al Consejo, al Comité Económico y Social Europeo y al Comité de las Regiones, sobre la aplicación de la Directiva 94/80/CE por la que se fijan las modalidades de ejercicio del derecho de sufragio activo y pasivo en las elecciones locales, COM (2018) 44 final, ha puesto de manifiesto como cada vez más los ciudadanos de la Unión Europea hacen uso de su derecho de libre circulación y residencia en otros estados miembros, de forma que se calcula que existen 14 millones de ciudadanos europeos desplazados en edad de votar. Sin embargo, los niveles de inscripción electoral de estos ciudadanos en las elecciones locales siguen siendo muy poco significativos y su participación en los comicios locales se mantiene en índices extremadamente bajos. Estos datos reflejan que un porcentaje muy alto de estos ciudadanos no pueden ejercer sus derechos electorales, ni en su país de origen, ni en aquel en el que están desplazados, excluyendo por completo su participación democrática. Ello resulta especialmente paradójico en un ámbito, la UE, que propugna la democracia como uno de sus valores y atribuye a los derechos electorales la condición de derechos fundamentales. En este trabajo se abordan los límites del estatuto de la ciudadanía para garantizar la plena participación de los ciudadanos europeos en los asuntos públicos del país de residencia y los condicionantes jurídicos que influyen en el ejercicio efectivo de tales derechos en el ámbito interno de los estados, proponiendo una reformulación de los mismos capaz de otorgar un sello distintivo al estatuto de la ciudadanía en lo que se refiere a los derechos inherentes a la participación política en el país de residencia. ABSTRACT: The 2018 Report of the Commission to the European Parliament, Council, Economic Social Committee of the Regions on the application of Directive 94/80/CE on the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections, COM (2018) 44 final, has shown how an increasing number of citizens from the European Union make use of their right to free movement and residence in other member states, so that it is estimated that there are 14 millions of moving European citizens of voting age. However, the levels of electoral registration in local elections are quite insignificant and their participation in local polls remain extremely low. These figures reflect that a very high proportion of these citizens cannot exercise their electoral rights, neither at their home countries nor at the country where they moved, so disqualifying them from democratic participation. That is specially paradoxical in a field, the EU, that has advocated for democracy as one of its core values and that considers electoral rights fundamental rights. This work deals with the limits of the citizenship status in order to guarantee the full involvement of European citizens in public affairs of their country of residence and the legal constraints that influence on the effective exercise of such rights within the domestic sphere of states by proposing a reformulation of them that is able of granting a distinctive status to citizenship as far as those inherent rights to political participation at the country of residence are concerned.

scholarly journals Impartiality in the EU Asylum Procedure

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 338-356
Author(s):  
Pieter van Reenen
Keyword(s):  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Court ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Right To Good Administration ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The Asylum Procedures Directive stipulates that asylum applications are examined ‘impartially’ by the national authorities. This paper explores the meaning of the term impartiality in administrative settings in EU asylum law focussing on three levels: the Common European Asylum System, the administrative organisational level and the level of the individual immigration officer. CEAS does not provide for a definition of impartiality. The article connects impartiality to the right to good administration as in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. It includes jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights as well as the approach of the EU Ombudsman and EASO in its scope. These sources provide more concrete aspects of impartiality. The article is finalized with recommendations for a code of conduct.

The Freedom to Conduct a Business in the EU, Its Limitations and Its Role in the European Legal Order: A New Engine for Deeper and Stronger Economic, Social, and Political Integration

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (9) ◽  
pp. 1867-1888 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Usai
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Integration ◽  
Social Economic ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Political Integration ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This paper examines the role and importance of the freedom to conduct a business enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR). With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the CFR became legally binding, gaining the same legal value as the Treaties. It will be argued here that Article 16 CFR, which recognizes the right to economic initiative, can be an important force for European integration by acting as a new engine of European social, economic, and political integration. That said, Article 16 should be read bearing its limitations in mind.

The EU Citizens’ Directive—An Introduction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elspeth Guild ◽  
Steve Peers ◽  
Jonathan Tomkin
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the EU Citizenship Directive. The European Union Directive 2004/38 or the EU Citizenship Directive gives effect to the right which EU law provides to all EU citizens and their family members of any nationality to move, reside, and exercise economic activities if they so choose on the territory of any EU Member State. The right to move and reside anywhere in the EU is a right which is accorded to Union citizens by virtue of Articles 20(2)(a) and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and enshrined in Article 45 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The right of free movement of persons in their capacities as workers, self-employed persons, or service providers straddles two of the four fundamental freedoms of the European Union—free movement of persons and services.

scholarly journals DECONSTRUCTING DATA PROTECTION: THE ‘ADDED-VALUE’ OF A RIGHT TO DATA PROTECTION IN THE EU LEGAL ORDER

2014 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 569-597 ◽  
Author(s):  
Orla Lynskey
Keyword(s):  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Added Value ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Individual Personality ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

AbstractArticle 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights sets out a right to data protection which sits alongside, and in addition to, the established right to privacy in the Charter. The Charter's inclusion of an independent right to data protection differentiates it from other international human rights documents which treat data protection as a subset of the right to privacy. Its introduction and its relationship with the established right to privacy merit an explanation. This paper explores the relationship between the rights to data protection and privacy. It demonstrates that, to date, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has consistently conflated the two rights. However, based on a comparison between the scope of the two rights as well as the protection they offer to individuals whose personal data are processed, it claims that the two rights are distinct. It argues that the right to data protection provides individuals with more rights over more types of data than the right to privacy. It suggests that the enhanced control over personal data provided by the right to data protection serves two purposes: first, it proactively promotes individual personality rights which are threatened by personal data processing and, second, it reduces the power and information asymmetries between individuals and those who process their data. For these reasons, this paper suggests that there ought to be explicit judicial recognition of the distinction between the two rights.

Case C-176/12 Association de Médiation Sociale: Some Reflections on the Horizontal Effect of the Charter and the Reach of Fundamental Employment Rights in the European Union

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 332-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleni Frantziou
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Employment Rights ◽  
First Time ◽  
The Eu

On 15 January 2014, the Court of Justice (hereafter ‘the Court’) delivered its judgment in Association de Médiation Sociale (hereafter ‘AMS’). AMS brought for the first time before the Court the issue of horizontal applicability in relation to a provision of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (hereafter ‘Charter’), namely Article 27 thereof, which enshrines the right of workers to information and consultation within the undertaking. The case therefore raised questions of ‘undeniable constitutional significance’, as Advocate-General Cruz Villalón had put it in his Opinion, regarding the post-Lisbon enforcement and interpretation of the Charter and, in particular, its application to disputes between private parties.

scholarly journals Limits on Limitations: The Essence of Fundamental Rights in the EU

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 779-793 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koen Lenaerts
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Present Contribution ◽  
Competing Interests ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe concept of the essence of a fundamental right—set out in Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the “Charter”)—operates as a constant reminder that our core values as Europeans are absolute. In other words, they are not up for balancing. As the seminal judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) in Schrems shows, where a measure imposes a limitation on the exercise of a fundamental right that is so intense and so comprehensive that it calls into question that right as such, that measure is incompatible with the Charter, as it deprives the right at issue of its essence. This is so without the need for a balancing exercise of competing interests, because a measure that compromises the very essence of a fundamental right is automatically disproportionate. Therefore, the present contribution supports the contention that in order for the concept of essence to function in a constitutionally meaningful way, both EU and national courts should apply the “respect-for-the-essence test” before undertaking a proportionality assessment.

Security and the Transformation of the EU Public Order

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (10) ◽  
pp. 2057-2073 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matej Avbelj
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Fundamental Value ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the changing character of the European Union (“EU”) public order under the impact of security concerns. The EU public order has long been characterized by a tension between a more market-oriented, neo-liberal Union and a more socio-political Union. The former would be driven by the EU's four fundamental freedoms, whereas the latter would be achieved and safeguarded through the language and practice of fundamental rights. As other scholarly contributions to the issue have demonstrated, the relationship between fundamental freedoms and fundamental rights is anything but settled. It continues to be subject to many, sometimes potent, legal and political controversies. However, while the EU public order is still in pursuit of the right balance between economic freedoms and socio-political rights, it also has to reckon with another fundamental value: The value of security.

scholarly journals Identification Systems and Their Legitimacy in the New Legislation on the Protection of Personal Data

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 116
Author(s):  
Vlastimil Benes ◽  
Karel Neuwirt ◽  
Otto Dostal
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Identification System ◽  
Digital Environment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

In the new digital environment, citizens have the right to use tools to effectively control the usage of personal information related to them. Data protection is one of the fundamental rights in the EU guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The article deals with the requirements that electronic identification system operators will have to take into account to ensure that the system in operation meets the requirements for the protection of personal data.

Revisiting the Role of the EU Judiciary as the Stronghold for the Protection of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism

Global Jurist ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Riccardi
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Due Process Rights ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This article revisits the response of the European Union (EU) to the challenges posed by anti-terrorist smart sanctions regimes to fundamental rights, vis-à-vis recent legal developments. Following the Kadi saga, many authors defined the EU judicature as the bastion of the rule of law against executive powers. From the perspective of the Council of the EU, instead, Kadi caused a tremor. The EU courts did not only declare that anti-terrorist sanctions could be reviewed: they also affirmed that such review is in principle full, thus extended to all information substantiating sanctions, irrespective of whether covered by secrecy. In this respect, the European Court of Justice established that it is a task of the judiciary to accommodate security considerations militating against the disclosure of intelligence in court and the right to a fair trial. However, through legal instruments adopted in late 2016, the EU seems to be backing off from these settled principles. To test such assumption, the article proceeds in three steps. Firstly, it outlines the contours of the UN Security Council anti-terrorist sanctions regime, pinpointing the characteristics that make such regime problematic with respect to fair trial rights. Secondly, it surveys the development of EU courts’ case-law on secret evidence. Thirdly, it investigates whether the new legal instruments adopted by EU institutions adhere to the principles enshrined in said EU courts’ decisions, or rather represent a departure from consolidated due process rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document