scholarly journals La interpretación del art. 47 CDFUE como expresión de la labor hermenéutica del Tribunal de Luxemburgo en la construcción de un estándar europeo de protección de los derechos

Author(s):  
Ciro Milione

Desde la entrada en vigor del Tratado de Lisboa, la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea (CDFUE) ha adquirido una relevancia incuestionable en su ámbito material. El Tribunal de Luxemburgo, en calidad de supremo intérprete de la Carta, interviene para definir el alcance de sus preceptos, construyendo con sus sentencias un verdadero estándar de protección de los derechos en seno a la Unión. Este estudio pone de manifiesto esta evolución a partir del análisis las resoluciones más relevantes del Tribunal de Luxemburgo en relación al art. 47 (CDFUE) por el que se consagra el derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva y a un juez imparcial.Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) has acquired an unquestionable relevance in its material scope. The Luxembourg Court, as ultimate interpreter of the Charter, intervenes to define the extent of its precepts, establishing a European standard of protection of fundamental rights. This paper describes this evolution, taking into consideration the most relevant resolutions from the Luxembourg Court on the art. 47 CFREU, which establishes the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial.

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (9) ◽  
pp. 1851-1865
Author(s):  
Haakon Roer-Eide ◽  
Mariolina Eliantonio

The right to an effective legal remedy is a generally accepted principle of modern legal systems and is enshrined in national constitutions as well as international treaties, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. On the European Union (hereinafter EU) level, the right to an effective remedy is laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


Author(s):  
Alessia Vacca

This article focuses on the comparison between European Union Law and Council of Europe Law in the field of the protection of minority languages and looks at the relationships between the two systems. The Council of Europe has been very important in the protection of minority languages, having created two treaties of particular relevance: the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in 1992 and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in 1995; both treaties contain many detailed provisions relating to minority languages. Not all countries, even of the European Union, have ratified these treaties. 12 out of 27 EU countries did not ratify the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Union supports multilingualism because it wants to achieve unity while maintaining diversity. Important steps, with respect to minority languages, were taken in the European Community, notably in the form of European Parliament Resolutions. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, approved in Nice the 7th December 2000, contains art. 21 and art. 22 related to this topic. The Treaty of Lisbon makes a cross reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which is, consequently, legally binding under the Treaty of Lisbon since December 2009. The Charter could give ground for appeal to the European Court of Justice in cases of discrimination on the grounds of language


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?


2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 884-903
Author(s):  
Kathleen Gutman

AbstractThis contribution examines the developing contours of the essence of the fundamental right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial in the light of salient case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is divided into three main parts. The first part provides an overview of the meaning of the essence of fundamental rights in EU law and the scope of the inquiry in relation to Article 47 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union (“the Charter”). The second part evaluates the essence of the fundamental right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial in connection with justified limitations that may be placed on its exercise as provided for in Article 52(1) of the Charter within the framework of the EU system of fundamental rights protection, which in turn implicates the relationship with the Court’s case-law on national procedural autonomy, equivalence, and effectiveness. The third part delves into the essence of the fundamental right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial within the framework of the EU system of judicial protection, as illustrated by the Court’s case-law in several areas, including standing for individuals in direct actions before the EU courts, judicial independence, and restrictive measures in the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Through this analysis, the author argues that, while much awaits further refinement, certain recent developments in the Court’s case–law indicate that the essence of the fundamental right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial can play a meaningful role in the EU system of fundamental rights protection and the EU system of judicial protection more broadly, and thus the best may be yet to come as that case-law progresses in the future.


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.


Author(s):  
Hielke Hijmans

The protection of natural persons in relation to the processing of personal data is a fundamental right. Article 8(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’) and Article 16(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provide that everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.


2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (9) ◽  
pp. 1867-1888 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Usai

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.


Author(s):  
Maciej Paweł Jaskot ◽  
Agnieszka Wiltos

An approach to the translation of deontic modality in legal texts. The case of the Polish and English versions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European UnionThe co-existence of twenty-four legal languages in the European Union is guaranteed by the basic principles of EU language policy, stated in its founding treaty. Indeed, every EU citizen has the right to communicate with the EU in the official language of their choice, and to receive a reply in the same language. Such a situation is reflected in legal multilingualism, which presents challenges for both linguists and translators.One of these challenges is the translation of deontic modality. This article focuses on how deontic modality is expressed in the Polish and English versions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The form and usage of modal forms which express deontic possibility (i.e. permission) and deontic necessity (i.e. obligation) are highlighted, as well as the similarities and differences between the two parallel texts. The differences between the modal forms in the two versions of the text have consequences regarding the degree of both the subject’s and addressee’s commitment to norms and regulations.This article aspires to contribute to the study of deontic modal language, which is considered to be one of the central linguistic phenomena most in need of explanation. Tłumaczenie modalności deontycznej w tekstach prawnych na przykładzie polsko- i anglojęzycznej wersji Karty praw podstawowych Unii EuropejskiejWspółistnienie dwudziestu czterech języków oficjalnych Unii Europejskiej gwarantowane jest przez podstawowe zasady przyjętej przez nią polityki językowej, których podstawy zawarte są w traktatach założycielskich. W ich wyniku każdy obywatel UE ma prawo nie tylko do komunikowania się z organami UE w wybranym przez siebie języku urzędowym oraz do otrzymania odpowiedzi w tymże języku, ale również do tego, aby całe prawo Unii Europejskiej tworzone było we wszystkich 24 językach urzędowych. Wspomniane założenia stanowią jednak ogromne wyzwanie zarówno dla tłumaczy, jak i lingwistów.Teksty prawne składające się na system prawa Unii Europejskiej, sporządzone w 24 językach urzędowych UE, zawierają w sobie wypowiedzi, których immanentną cechą jest modalność. Jednakowe wyrażenie wspomnianego elementu modalnego wydaje się jednak szczególnie trudne w procesie redagowania wielojęzycznych tekstów prawnych.Niniejszy artykuł poświęcony jest zagadnieniu sposobu wyrażania modalności deontycznej w polskiej i angielskiej wersji Karty Praw Podstawowych Unii Europejskiej. Przeprowadzone badanie pozwoliło na wyodrębnienie poszczególnych form językowych będących nośnikiem odpowiednio możliwości (dozwolenie) oraz konieczności (nakaz i zakaz) deontycznej. Wykazane zostały ponadto zaobserwowane różnice i podobieństwa pomiędzy dwoma równoległymi wersjami językowymi wspomnianego dokumentu. Na uwagę zasługują zwłaszcza te ostatnie ze względu na ich potencjalne konsekwencje wynikające z różnego stopnia zobowiązania się zarówno podmiotu, jak i adresata dokumentu do przestrzegania wynikających z niego norm.Celem artykułu jest przyczynienie się do rozszerzenia badań nad środkami wyrażania modalności deontycznej, stanowiącymi jedno z głównych zagadnień lingwistycznych wymagających głębszej analizy i opisu.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document