scholarly journals «X and X v Belgium»: the need for EU legislation on humanitarian visa

sui generis ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margarite Helena Zoeteweij-Turhan ◽  
Andrea Romano
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

This article examines the recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of X and X v. Belgium (C-638/16 PPU). The issue at stake concerns an application for a visa with limited territorial validity (LTV) requested by a Syrian family at the Belgian embassy in Beirut in order to apply for asylum in Belgium. The article discusses the different interpretations given by the Advocate General and the Court of Justice and agrees with the AG that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights leaves a limited margin of discretion to Member Sates and imposes a positive obligation to issue a LTV Visa in cases like X and X. It also concludes that the judgment in question clearly shows the need for the EU to adopt legislation regulating the issuance of humanitarian visas under the Visa Code.

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.

Migration and Asylum Cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union: Putting the Eu Charter of Fundamental Rights to Test?

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Ippolito
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Third Country Nationals

This article explores the various guarantees embedded in the eu Charter of Fundamental Rights for eu citizens and third country nationals, following the extension of the Court’s jurisdiction by the Lisbon Treaty in the area of freedom, security and justice. In particular, it highlights the potential and limits to the impact of the Charter in immigration or asylum cases before the cjeu.

scholarly journals Supremacía de la constitución versus primacía del derecho de la UE en materia derechos fundamentales: concordancias y discordancias entre el tribunal constitucional y el tribunal de justicia de la UE en el asunto Melloni

2017 ◽  
pp. 637
Author(s):  
Francisco Javier Donaire Villa
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Level ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

Se analiza en este artículo el primer diálogo judicial directo entre el TC español y el Tribunal de Justicia de la UE, sobre la Euroorden y la interpretación del artículo 53 de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la UE cuando el nivel nacional de protección de los derechos es superior al dispensado por una norma de Derecho derivado de la Unión. Se ponen de manifiesto las posibles tensiones entre supremacía constitucional y primacía del Derecho de la Unión Europea, y la evocación por el Tribunal Constitucional de su doctrina de los derechos constitucionalmente reconocidos como límites a la integración en la Sentencia que cierra el diálogo con el Tribunal de Justicia en el Asunto Melloni.This paper surveys the first direct judicial dialogue between the Spanish Constitutional Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union on the European Arrest Warrant and the interpretation of Article 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU when the national level of protection of rights is higher than that provided by a rule of secondary legislation of the Union. It highlights the possible tensions between constitutional supremacy and primacy of European Union law, and the evocation made by the Constitutional Court of its doctrine on rights constitutionally recognized as limits to the European integration contained in the judgment which closes the dialogue between both Courts within the so-called Melloni case.

Travauxto the EU Treaties: Preparatory Work as a Source of EU Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 145-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuli MIETTINEN ◽  
Merita KETTUNEN
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Dynamic Interpretation ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Preparatory Work ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe Court of Justice of the European Union has historically rejected references to preparatory work in the interpretation of EU Treaties. However, the preparatory work for the EURATOM, Maastricht, and Constitutional Treaties have played a role in recent judgments. The ‘explanations’ to the Charter of Fundamental Rights are expressly approved in the current Treaties. We examine the emerging case law on preparatory work. Reference to the drafters’ intent does not necessarily support dynamic interpretation, and may potentially even ossify historical interpretations. Even if the consequence of their introduction is a conservative interpretation, their use raises questions of transparency and democracy, and complicates the already difficult task of interpreting the EU constitution.

scholarly journals Interpretation of Art. 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oskar Losy
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

The paper discusses the problem of the ne bis in idem principle stipulated in the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Article 54 of the CISA makes the application of the principle ne bis in idem subject to the condition of execution of the penalty. An analogous condition is not provided for in the Charter. These differences caused doubts regardingthe application of the ne bis in idem principle and were subject of the question for preliminary ruling in the Spasic case (C-129/14 PPU). The paper contains a critical review of the reasoning of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this judgment. In addition, the article also contains an analysis of the CJEU’s decision in Case C-398/12 M. in which the CJEU has analysed the meaning of “final disposal” of the judgment in the context of the ne bis in idem principle. Based on the above judgments, the article presents arguments indicating that the reasoning of the CJEU on the conditions for the application of the ne bis in idem principle in judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU is not consistent.

scholarly journals Jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea sobre los sacrificios religiosos de animales

2019 ◽  
pp. 273-298
Author(s):  
Agustín GARCÍA URETA
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Organic Production ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Technical Requirements ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Ritual Sacrifice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Eu

LABURPENA: Iruzkin honek Europar Batasuneko Justizia Auzitegiaren (Sala Nagusia) bi epai aztertzen ditu, gaiari buruzko europar araudiaren arabera, animalien erritu sakrifizioei jarritako murrizketa, hiltegiek bete behar dituzten betekizun eta sakrifizio horietatik lortutako produktu ekologikoen etiketeei buruzkoak. Auzitegiak dioenez, erritu sakrifizioak baztertzeagatik, europar araudiak ez du erlijio askatasuna murrizten. Ezta Europar Batasuneko Oinarrizko Eskubideen 10. Artikuluaren harira, erritu sakrifizioak galarazten duten hiltegiei jarritako betekizun teknikoek ere. Bestetik, aldiz, erritu sakrifizioen ondorioz lortutako produktuek ezin dezakete etiketa ekologikoa izan. Edonola ere, Auzitegiak azpimarratzen du erritu sakrifizioa zilegi dela Europar Batasunean salbuespen gisa soilik eta erlijio askatasunaren begirunea bermatzea duenean helburu. ABSTRACT: This comment examines two judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (Grand Chamber) regarding the restrictions for the ritual slaughter of animals, in the light of the EU regulations on this matter, the requirements to meet by slaughterhouses and the application of EU rules on organic production and labelling of organic products. According to the Court, EU legislation on the killing of animals does not represent a restriction on religious freedom in so far as it contemplates it. The technical requirements applicable to slaughterhouses do not necessarily impede the ritual slaughter in the light of Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. However, products obtained after the ritual sacrifice of animals could not benefit from the rules on organic production and labelling. The Court has reaffirmed that the ritual slaughter is authorised only by way of derogation in the EU and solely in order to ensure observance of the freedom of religion. RESUMEN: El presente comentario examina dos sentencias del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (TJUE) (Gran Sala) respecto de las restricciones para el sacrificio ritual de animales a la luz de la normativa europea sobre esta materia, los requisitos que deben cumplir los mataderos y la imposibilidad de aplicar la normativa sobre producción y etiquetado de los productos ecológicos a los obtenidos a partir de tal sacrificio. Según el TJUE, la normativa europea no implica una restricción a la libertad religiosa, al exceptuar el caso de los sacrificios rituales. Tampoco los requisitos técnicos de los mataderos impiden el sacrificio ritual a la luz del artículo 10 de la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea. Por otra parte, si embargo, los productos obtenidos a partir del sacrificio ritual no se pueden beneficiar de la etiqueta ecológica. En todo caso, el Tribunal recalca que el sacrifico ritual se autoriza en la UE solo con carácter excepcional y con el único fin de garantizar el respeto de la libertad de religión.

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.

Instrument of Mobilization or a Bridge towards Understanding? Religion and Values in the Reform Process of the European Union

2009 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christof Mandry
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Political Identity ◽  
Fundamental Question ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Self ◽  
Reform Process ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe self-understanding of the Europeans has been profoundly put into question since 1989, and during the EU reform process, 'Europe' was confronted by the task of describing itself anew. In this context, the debate about the significance of the religious patrimony took on a key position in the discourse. The broad public discussions of the preambles to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union (ECT) indicate that the relationship between religion and political remains a controversial issue. The article argues that the 'preamble disputes' are part and parcel of the European Union's quest for a political identity and that the outcome of the identity debate—the self-description as a 'community of values'—deals in a specific way with this fundamental question.

scholarly journals Has the Action for Failure to Act in the European Union Lost its Purpose?

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inga Daukšienė ◽  
Arvydas Budnikas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
The Eu

ABSTRACT This article analyzes the purpose of the action for failure to act under article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The statements are derived from the analysis of scientific literature, relevant legislation, practice of the European Union Court of Justice (CJEU) and the European Union General Court (EUGC). Useful information has also been obtained from the opinions of general advocates of the CJEU. The article of TFEU 265, which governs the action for failure to act, is very abstract. For this reason, a whole procedure under the article 265 TFEU was developed by the EU courts. The original purpose of the action for failure to act was to constitute whether European Union (EU) institution properly fulfilled its obligations under the EU legislation. However, in the course of case-law, a mere EU institution’s express refusal to fulfill its duties became sufficient to constitute that the EU institution acted and therefore action for failure to act became devoid of purpose. This article analyzes whether the action for failure to act has lost its purpose and become an ineffective legal remedy in the system of judicial review in the EU. Additionally, the action for failure to act is compared to similar national actions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document