scholarly journals ¿Es real el diálogo entre tribunales? Cuestión prejudicial y control de constitucionalidad por vulneración de derechos y libertades fundamentales

2017 ◽  
pp. 529
Author(s):  
Encarnación Roca Trías ◽  
Susana García Couso
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
National Constitution

Es de sobra conocida la tensión existente entre los Tribunales Constitucionales de los Estados miembros y el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea a raíz del planteamiento de cuestiones prejudiciales ante el TJUE en supuestos en los que, aunque el asunto se plantee como una cuestión interpretativa del derecho de la Unión, comprende, además, un problema de derechos fundamentales susceptibles de ser controlados, también, constitucionalmente. Ambos procedimientos terminan con una decisión de compatibilidad con los derechos fundamentales. Este artículo pretende hacer una reflexión acerca de los problemas que suscita el hecho de que dos Tribunales —TJUE y TC— competentes en materia de protección de derechos fundamentales, y, al mismo tiempo, interpretadores de un mismo ordenamiento jurídico, puedan emitir juicios paralelos sobre una misma norma que ha sido sometida a su control y con parámetros diferentes de control: la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea y la Constitución.This paper purports to reflect on the complex issues that arise from the fact that both the European Court of Justice and the national constitutional court have the power to adjudicate on fundamental rights and that, therefore, on the basis of the application of different rules — the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the national Constitution — they can occasionally arrive at different decisions. National courts are more and more aware of this dual avenue to challenge national regulations, through the preliminary reference to the ECJ and through the reference to the Constitutional Court of constitutional doubts with regard to national legislation. In consequence, national Constitutional Courts must accommodate into this new scenario.

The Domestic Reach of General Principles of Law: First City Trading Revisited

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 199-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nick Grief
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Academic Evaluation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
General Principles Of Law

This is a critical analysis—in the light of the Lisbon Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and recent European Court of Justice (ECJ) case law—of the judgment in R v MAFF, ex p First City Trading, or at least of that part of the judgment concerning the domestic reach of general principles of law. Laws J held that the legal status of the general principles ‘made’ by the ECJ is inferior to that of the principles enshrined in the Treaty, and that therefore the domestic reach of the former is narrower than that of the latter. In the years since the judgment was delivered, however, it does not appear to have been considered by the ECJ and there seems to have been little academic evaluation of its cogency and implications. One commentator considered that the distinction drawn by the judge seemed correct. Another was critical, asserting that ‘the distinction between principles based on Treaty provisions and general principles of law cannot be deduced from the case law of the Court of Justice’. The possible entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, which recognises that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (and thus presumably the rights, freedoms and principles within it) has ‘the same legal value as the Treaties’, makes it appropriate to revisit the judgment and consider whether Laws J’s approach was correct.

scholarly journals La aplicación judicial de la CDFUE; un decálogo a partir de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea

2017 ◽  
pp. 333
Author(s):  
Rafael Bustos Gisbert
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Basic Point ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights

En este ensayo se pretende examinar cuáles son las pautas que ha de seguir el juez nacional cuando se enfrenta a la aplicación de la CDFUE. El punto de referencia básico en esta materia ha de ser la jurisprudencia sobre el tema del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea. De forma complementaria habrá de tenerse en cuenta la posición del Tribunal Constitucional y del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. A partir de lo ocurrido en los casos más importantes hasta ahora planteados se pretende esclarecer cuándo y cómo ha de seguirse la jurisprudencia de los tres altos tribunales.This essay tries to establish the basic patterns that judges must follow when facing the adjudication of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The basic point of reference is the case law of the European Court of Justice. But they also must be take into account the case law of the Spanish Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights. After the study of the most important cases in the topic, the essay attempts to clarify when and how to follow the jurisprudence of these High Courts.

scholarly journals Ne bis in idem: a separation of acts in transnational cases?

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-115
Author(s):  
Márk Némedi
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This paper analyses the case-law of the European Court of Justice on the substantive scope of ne bis in idem in transnational cases and evaluates the findings in light of the different concepts of legal interests inherent in the concept of crime as a material notion. I argue that the application of the interpretation of the ECJ to crimes against collective interests is insufficiently justified. As a result, the interpretation of ne bis in idem based on material facts appears only partially correct and a sense of distrust seems to be cemented between member states creating obstacles to a successful reform of the principle. Part one attempts to defend that the reasoning put forward by the court lacks relevance and evaluates how this affects mutual trust. Part two analyses this interpretation in the light of different forms of legal interest. Part three examines how later case-law has tried to explain the problematic interpretation of early cases and its relationship with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The article will conclude by summarising the findings which may put into perspective the more general challenges of cooperation in criminal matters within the EU.

scholarly journals Glosa do wyroku Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej z dnia 12 lutego 2015 r. w sprawie Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry c/a Elektrobudowa Spółka Akcyjna (C‑396/13)

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 191-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Witold Kurowski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Employment Relationships ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Polish Law ◽  
Rome I

This paper aims to comment an important ruling concerning the Posted Workers Directive (Directive 96/71/EC). In the judgement C-396/13 (Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry v. Elektrobudowa Spółka Akcyjna), the European Court of Justice providedits pro-worker’s interpretation of Art 3 of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the scope of the "minimum pay rate". The second issue raised by the European Court of Justice was the assignability of pay claims governed by Polish law based on Art 14 (2) of Rome I Regulation and prohibited under that law. In commented judgement, the Court admitted the assignment of claims arising from employment relationships in light of article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and accepted the trade union’s right to represent the posted workers.

Decision 22/2016. (XII. 5.) AB on the Interpretation of Article E)(2) of the Fundamental Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (2) ◽  
pp. 468-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ágoston Mohay ◽  
Norbert Tóth
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Law

In a case of first impression, the Constitutional Court of Hungary (CCH or Court) ruled on November 30, 2016 that, in exceptional cases, it is competent to consider whether Hungary's obligations to the European Union (EU) violate fundamental individual rights (including human dignity) or Hungarian sovereignty as protected by the Hungarian Constitution. The decision places Hungary squarely within the growing group of EU member states whose constitutional courts have decided that, despite the decisions of the European Court of Justice regarding the primacy of EU law, EU member states are not compelled to violate their domestic constitutional obligations in carrying out their shared EU commitments.

The charter of fundamental rights of the European Union: Pandora’s box or panacea?

2003 ◽  
Vol 45 (5/6) ◽  
pp. 145-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane Ryland
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Treaty Of Rome ◽  
Internal Policy

Aims to trace the legal bases for the protection of fundamental rights in the European Community and the European Union, but looks here at internal policy only. Though there was no basis in the Treaty of Rome (1957) for human rights, the European Court of Justice has declared that fundamental human rights are enshrined in the general principles of Community law and thereby protected by the Court. Investigates the Charter, in full, herein

scholarly journals Values and the Rule of Law: Foundations of the European Union – An Inside Perspective from the ECJ

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Von Danwitz
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Universal Values ◽  
The Individual

Let us remember what has been written, ratified and set into force with the Treaty of Lisbon. The preamble of the Charter of Fundamental Rights starts out by stating: "The peoples of Europe, in creating an ever closer union among them, are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values." And it goes on: "Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice." Even if a cynic might have considered these words to be merely a lip service unlikely to disturb the power-play European governments were so eagerly engaged in, the Charter nonetheless became the supreme law of the land and the preferred tools of the trade of a rather awkward species of beings, already of bad repute for relying on the mere wording of legal acts, and even worse, for taking rights seriously: judges - in particular those of the European Court of Justice.

scholarly journals Europe and Rights: Taking Dialogue Seriously

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta Cartabia
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Activism ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights

Judicial dialogue – protection of fundamental rights – common constitutional principles – judicial activism – Charter of Fundamental Rights – pluralistic nature of Europe – national particularism – preliminary reference procedure – duty of constitutional courts to participate in dialogue – protection of national constitutional values and traditions – judicial style of European Court of Justice

scholarly journals ¿Quién es el juez de los derechos fundamentales frente a la ley en el ámbito interno de aplicación del derecho comunitario?: (reflexiones sobre el control iusfundamental del derecho interno a la luz de la recepción nacional de los derechos fundamentales d

2007 ◽  
pp. 401 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Ignacio Ugartemendia Eceizabarrena
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Community Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
National Constitution

The aim of this article is firstly to describe the phenomenum of «national or state incorporation« of European Union Fundamental Rights.That is a process that was launched by the European Court of Justice with its judgment Wachauf in 1989, when it established that Member states were obliged to respect European Community Fundamental Rights in the implementation of Community law rules. It implies that those afore mentioned rights become parameters of conformity with Community Law and are to be used by national courts and judges when they are asked to control national authorities’ acts (including national legislure’s) taking into account those parameters. From this point of view, this work tries likewise to analyse how that incorporation affects the activity of judicial review of national acts in the light of fundamental rights as recognized by the National constitution. And specially when judicial review deals with Acts and other legal rules with same rank.

The unexpectedly talkative ‘dumb son’: the Italian Constitutional Court’s dialogue with the European Court of Justice in protecting temporary workers’ rights in the public education sector

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 493-524
Author(s):  
Barbara Guastaferro
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Italian Legislation

Judicial cooperation – Italian Constitutional Court – National Constitutional Courts’ attitude towards preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice – First and second preliminary reference of the Italian Constitutional Court inindirectproceedings – Constitutional review of national legislation inconsistent with EU law – Relationship between EU law and constitutional concerns – Added value of Constitutional Courts in protecting constitutional identity – Multilevel protection of fundamental rights – EU Framework agreement on fixed-term work and European Court of Justice case law – Italian legislation on fixed-term work – Italian legislation on recruitment in State schools – Abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts – Judicial defence of workers’ rights – Cooperation between judges and legislators – Balancing between social rights and budgetary constraints –Mascolocase –Tariccocase

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document