scholarly journals La protección de la integridad personal // The protection of personal integrity

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (100) ◽  
pp. 257
Author(s):  
Raúl Canosa Usera

Resumen:El artículo pretende analizar la evolución de la protección de la integridad personal en España desde la aprobación de la Constitución de 1978 hasta el presente.En primer lugar, se aborda el contexto en el que la Constitución fue aprobada y las opciones que al constituyente se le abrían. Se destaca que por primera vez en España se reconocía un específico derecho a la integridad, lo que no es habitual, al lado de la tradicional prohibición de torturas y penas o tratos inhumanos o degradantes que arrancó ya con la constitución de 1812.Era necesario analizar la protección de la integridad en el Derecho Internacional de los derechos humanos que España ha incorporado a su Orden jurídico, así como la Carta de Derechos fundamentales de la Unión Europea Que sí proclama el derecho a la integridad. En este sentido es destacable como el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos ha inferido el derecho a la integridad de la forma más generosa a través de una interpretación evolutiva del derecho a la vida privada.Sin embargo, no es fácil determinar ni cuál es el bien jurídico protegido ni cuáles las posiciones iusfundamentales que contiene; es decir, qué se protege y cuáles son las situaciones de la vida cuya vulneración el titular del derecho puede defender, llegado el caso, activando la labor tutelar de los tribunales. Por ello ha sido fundamental también el intenso desarrollo legislativo que lo ha concretado en diversos sectores del ordenamiento así como las medidas de protección en favor de los más vulnerables.Summary:1. The 1978 Context in which the right to integrity was recognized. 1.1 Overview of International Law and Foreign Constitutional Law. 1.2 The options of the Constituent Power in the process of drafting Article 15 of the Spanish Constitution. 2. The evolutionary interpretation of international law. 2.1 The extension of the protection field of Article 3 ECHR. 2.2 The inclusion of contents of the right to integrity into the right to respect for private life. a) Right to a criminal protection of the integrity. b) Right to authorize or refuse medical treatments. c) Right to sexual and reproductive life. The problem of abortion. d) Face to pollution. e) In the home. 3. Specific recognition of the right to integrity in the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. 4. Determination of the fundamental positions under the right to integrity. 4.1 Procedural violation of the prohibition of torture. 4.2 Regarding health protection and in the heath field. a) Overlap with the right to health. b) Consent to medical treatment. c) Donations and transplants. d) Abortion as a potential exercise of the right to integrity by the pregnant woman. f) In the field of medical and scientific experiments. 4.3 Right to integrity against pollution. 4.4 Right to protection. 4.5 The guarantee to not suffer legal physical interventions and the exclusion of the indemnity guarantee. 4.6 In the special relationships of subjection. 4.7 In the labor market. 5. Conclusion: what object and what content?AbstractThe article tries to analyze the evolution of the protection of integrity in Spain since the Constitution came into force in 1978. First of all, it is addressed the context in which the Constitution was approved as well as the options opened to Constituent Power. It is underlined that, for the first time in Spain, a specific right to integrity is declared, something unusual at that time, together with the traditional prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, already introduced in the Constitution of 1812.It was necessary to analyze how the protection of integrity in International Law on Human Rights, as well as the right to the integrity of the person, proclaimed specifically in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In this sense, it is remarkable how the European Court of Human Rights has inferred a right to the integrity from the right to respect for private and family life, by interpreting evolutionarily the Convention.However, it is not easy to determine neither the object of the right to integrity nor what are the fundamental positions, the life situations, whose violation should permit person to claim in Courts of Justice, by activating their protective function. For the rest, it has also been crucial the intense legislative  development that has implemented, in various sectors of the legal system,measures of protection in favor of the most vulnerable people.

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 357-363
Author(s):  
Bjarney Friðriksdóttir

Abstract This case report provides an account of the issues addressed in the preliminary ruling of the CJEU in Martinez Silva vs. Italy. The case centres on the limitations Member States of the European Union are permitted to apply in granting third-country nationals in employment equal treatment with nationals in social security rights according to Directive 2011/98/EU (the Single Permit Directive). Additionally, the preliminary ruling of the Court is discussed is discussed in the context of the human rights principle of equal treatment as it is enshrined in EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and International Labour Law.


2018 ◽  
Vol 331 ◽  
pp. 29-39
Author(s):  
Justyna Matusiak ◽  
Marcin Princ

The right to good administration constitutes an established principle of European Union law, which includes the procedural rights of stakeholders in administrative proceedings, the result of which may affect their interests. Article 41 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights states that every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies of the Union. When it comes to reasonable time of handling the case one can ask if eGovernment solutions are the guarantee of such a right. eGovernment understood as the use of all kinds of electronic means of communication, in particular, however, the Internet, improves services provided by the state to its citizens. The usage of IT technology in public administration allows it to perform its activities in a more efficient way. This improvement applies not only to the communication between parties but also to the quality of citizens’ life. To sum up, one can ask the question if the European right to good administration can be understood as the right to eGovernment solutions and if so, to what extent. Which services and technical solutions should be guaranteed as ones ensuring challenges of good administration?


Author(s):  
Katalin Ligeti

Since long before the entry into force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU), the two highest courts in Europe, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have sought to develop their respective jurisprudence in such a way as to ensure a strong protection of individual rights, whilst avoiding clashes between the decisions taken in Luxembourg and Strasbourg. An important statement in this regard is provided by the Bosphorus judgment, in which the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR recognised the existence of a presumption of equivalent protection of fundamental rights under EU law. The presumption is rebuttable, but expresses the trustful attitude (and a certain degree of deference) of Strasbourg towards the ability of EU law (and of the CJEU) to protect Convention rights.


Author(s):  
Lorna Woods ◽  
Philippa Watson ◽  
Marios Costa

This chapter examines the development of the general principles by the Court of Justice (CJ) to support the protection of human rights in the European Union (EU) law. It analyses the relationship of the general principles derived from the CJ’s jurisprudence to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights (EUCFR). It discusses the possible accession of the EU to the ECHR and the implications of Opinion 2/13. It suggests that although the protection of human rights has been more visible since the Lisbon Treaty and there are now more avenues to such protection, it is debatable whether the scope and level of protection has increased.


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-448
Author(s):  
Maria Antonia Panascì

This case note examines the judgment of Court of Justice of the European Union delivered in Joined Cases C-569/16 and C-570/16 Stadt Wuppertal v. Maria Elisabeth Bauer and Volker Willmeroth v. Martina Broßonn on 6 November 2018. It engages with the noteworthy aspects of the ruling, such as the horizontal direct effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter), the relationship between primary and secondary law in the European Union legal order and the scope of application of the Charter.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document