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.

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.

Application of the EU CFR by National Courts in Purely Domestic Cases

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
András Jakab
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Local Courts ◽  
Domestic Level ◽  
The Eu

This chapter argues that the most promising way to conceptualize the values of European constitutionalism in a judicially enforceable manner is through a creative reinterpretation of Article 51(1) EU CFR. It asserts that in order to create a fully fledged value community which benefits all its citizens equally, the CFR should become fully applicable in every case in its own right—even in purely domestic cases in domestic courts and even in the absence of a systemic failure of fundamental rights protection at the domestic level. This would mean that judicial review would be introduced across Europe via the supremacy of EU law. This judicial review would be decentralized in the sense that local courts could exercise it, but its unified application would be ensured by the preliminary procedure. The EU could thus become a ‘community of fundamental rights’ with nobody left behind.

scholarly journals The Essence of the Fundamental Right to an Effective Remedy and to a Fair Trial in the Case-Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union: The Best Is Yet to Come?

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 884-903
Author(s):  
Kathleen Gutman
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
To Come ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
The Eu

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.

The EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: A Lack of Fundamental Rights, Mutual Trust and Democracy?

2009 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 53-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sionaidh Douglas-Scott
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Identity ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Legal Accountability ◽  
To Come ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe EU’s ‘Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ is a hugely important area covering criminal law, terrorism, immigration, visa control and civil justice, as well as the massive area of free movement of persons. What is clear, however, is that measures which fall within its scope have the capacity to alienate EU citizens rather than making them feel aware of their European identity in a positive sense. This chapter examines some of the measures taken by the EU in this broad field which cause particular concern, namely a lack of democratic and legal accountability as well as inadequate regard to human rights. It focuses in particular on two areas in which human rights protection in the EU has been undermined. The first is in the field of data protection. The second is in the field of suspects’ rights, particularly in the context of the European arrest warrant. The chapter concludes by considering why so many restrictions on freedom have been allowed to come about and suggests some possible solutions.

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 Farewell to the EU Charter: Brexit and Fundamental Rights Protection

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-52
Author(s):  
Marco Galimberti
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

Twenty years after its drafting and more than one decade after its entry into force, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has ceased to be part of British law as a consequence of Brexit. Looking into this issue raised by the UK withdrawal from the European Union, the essay sheds some light on the legal status and impact of the EU Bill of Rights in the British legal order. Against this background, the article detects a connection between the UK Supreme Court’s case law and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the direct effect of the Charter. From this perspective, the analysis highlights the implications of the UK departure from the Charter and disentanglement from the Luxembourg case law, thus arguing that they may weaken the standards of fundamental rights protection.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document