OS ECJ-TF 3/2017 on the Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 May 2017 in Berlioz Investment Fund SA (Case C-682/15), Concerning the Right to Judicial Review Under Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in Cases of Cross-Border Mutual Assistance in Tax Matters

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
João Félix Pinto Nogueira
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Investment Fund ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

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.

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.

scholarly journals Case C-243/19 A v. Veselības ministrija

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2110424
Author(s):  
Jaan Paju
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Personal Choice ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Right

The issue at stake in Case C-243/19 A v. Veselības ministrija is whether a personal choice on the part of a patient, based on religious beliefs, must be considered when assessing the need for cross-border healthcare. The Court of Justice of the European Union holds that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is applicable and the right to freedom of religion can be invoked, in addition to medical criteria. However, the sustainability of the healthcare system can be an objective justification for refusal to grant authorisation for cross-border healthcare. Furthermore, the case clarifies – to a certain extent – the parallel tracks for claiming cross-border healthcare.

scholarly journals The right to paid annual leave as an EU fundamental social right. Comment on Bauer et al.: Joined Cases C-569/16 and C-570/16 Stadt Wuppertal v. Maria Elisabeth Bauer and Volker Willmeroth v. Martina Broßonn, EU:C:2018:871

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-448
Author(s):  
Maria Antonia Panascì
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Horizontal Direct Effect

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.

The Freedom to Conduct a Business in the EU, Its Limitations and Its Role in the European Legal Order: A New Engine for Deeper and Stronger Economic, Social, and Political Integration

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (9) ◽  
pp. 1867-1888 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Usai
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Integration ◽  
Social Economic ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Political Integration ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

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.

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 «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.

The EU Citizens’ Directive—An Introduction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elspeth Guild ◽  
Steve Peers ◽  
Jonathan Tomkin
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the EU Citizenship Directive. The European Union Directive 2004/38 or the EU Citizenship Directive gives effect to the right which EU law provides to all EU citizens and their family members of any nationality to move, reside, and exercise economic activities if they so choose on the territory of any EU Member State. The right to move and reside anywhere in the EU is a right which is accorded to Union citizens by virtue of Articles 20(2)(a) and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and enshrined in Article 45 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The right of free movement of persons in their capacities as workers, self-employed persons, or service providers straddles two of the four fundamental freedoms of the European Union—free movement of persons and services.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document