scholarly journals Diplomatic and Consular Protection with Special Reference to Article 46 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Laws ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 32
Author(s):  
Riaan Eksteen

Central to EU law and policies is the protection of human rights. For the European Union (EU), these rights are sacrosanct. Over the years, more substance to the protection of fundamental rights emerged. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is notably entrusted with the protection of human rights and has always deemed it imperative that fundamental rights must be protected within the scope of EU law. The Court has always relied on strong European traditions and values and is guided by the inalienable principle of the rule of law. In the human rights record of the EU, the Kadi cases occupy a special place. The scope of the application of Article 46 is limited, and the application of the Charter is still not used to its full potential, and too few citizens are even aware of it. The Commission intends to present a strategy that would improve the use and awareness of the Charter. By the middle of 2020, the UK’s withdrawal from the EU had become acrimonious. One issue that still begs the conclusion is the status of and protection available to EU citizens living in the UK beyond 31 December 2020. These basic rights of its citizens are not negotiable for the EU.

2021 ◽  
pp. 124-141
Author(s):  
Colin Faragher

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the Treaty framework and sources of EU law as well as the institutions of the EU. It covers the legal background to the UK’s departure from the EU, the legal process through which the UK left the EU, the key provisions of the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (2020), and the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. This chapter also discusses the effect of the UK’s departure from the EU on the status of the sources of EU law and the effect of leaving the EU on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms as well as failure to transpose a Directive into national law and the effect of leaving the EU on the Francovich principle.


2006 ◽  
Vol 58 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 104-127
Author(s):  
Maja Nastic

The paper deals with the innovations the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe brings into the field of human rights. One of them is incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the very Constitution. In this way, a political declaration adopted in Nice has become a legal document, achieving also constituionalisation of fundamental rights at the Union level. Secondly, there is an explicit possibility for the EU to accede the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Within that context the author considers the relationship between the Charter of Human Rights and the European Convention, as well as the relationship between the two courts: the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice.


2020 ◽  
pp. 240-268
Author(s):  
Sylvia de Mars

This chapter traces the development of EU law-based fundamental rights, from early Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case law up to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It considers the EU's relationship with the Council of Europe, focusing on how the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) attempt to avoid conflicting interpretations of overlapping rights, and whether the EU can in fact sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It is important to remember that the ECtHR and the ECHR are not part of EU law. The ECHR is an international human rights treaty administered by the Council of Europe. It is applied and interpreted by the ECtHR, and is transcribed into UK law in the form of the Human Rights Act 1998. The EU, meanwhile, has the Charter of Fundamental Rights as its human rights ‘treaty’. The chapter then looks at the relationship between the CJEU and the ECtHR, and examines post-Brexit fundamental rights.


2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 171-190
Author(s):  
Andrea Spagnolo

The present article addresses the issue of the loan of organs between international organizations, focusing on the most recent practice of the European Union (EU) and, in particular, on the loan of the Commission and the European Central Bank to the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). The hypothesis is that the loan of the two EU institutions to the ESM bridges two autonomous international organizations and that, for this reason, the EU can indirectly influence the activities of the ESM. The bridge is built on normative grounds, as EU institutions are bound to respect EU law even when they are borrowed by other international organizations, as the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) held in the Pringle case. In a more recent case, the Ledra Advertising, the same Court specified that the duty to respect EU law extends also to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This last consideration might have a positive impact on the protection of human rights in the context of austerity measures adopted by the ESM. Moreover, it might give to the EU an important tool for the enhancement of human rights protection in the relations with other international organizations. In this regard, the most recent practice of the EU reveals at the same time promises and perils.


2004 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rick Lawson

Now that the EU Constitution has been adopted, one might be inclined to think that the debate on the position of human rights in the legal order of the European Union has come to an end. For more than 25 years academics and politicians have discussed the desirability of EC/EU accession to the European Convention of Human Rights and have argued for or against a separate bill of fundamental rights. That is all over now: Article I-7 of the Constitution provides for Union accession to the European Convention, whereas part II incorporates the Charter of Fundamental Rights.It would seem, therefore, that a solid framework for the protection of human rights in the EU legal order has been put in place. The rest will be a matter of implementation: taking fundamental rights into account when drafting and executing European legislation; invoking these rights before the Court of Justice; lodging complaints with the European Court of Human Rights when the EU institutions, despite everything, failed to secure these rights. All very important, albeit that some may find the daily application of human rights not as sexy as the large constitutional questions of the past.So is this the ‘end of history’ for human rights? Quite the opposite. The best is yet to come!


Author(s):  
Nigel Foster

Foster on EU Law offers an account of the institutions and procedures of the EU legal system as well as focused analysis of key substantive areas, including free movement of goods; free movement of persons; citizenship; and competition law, including state aids. This clear structure provides a solid foundation in the mechanisms and applications of EU law. The book considers the supremacy of EU law in relation to ordinary domestic law, member state constitutional law, and international law, including UN Resolutions. It includes a consideration of EU law and Germany and France, as well as a briefer look at a number of other member states and contains discussion of human rights, in particular the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the moves of the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. The material on remedies in Chapter 6 has been rearranged to aid presentation and understanding. It follows the further developments of Art 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and has rearranged the material on the free movement of persons to take account of the judgments of the Court of Justice. The relationship between the UK and the EU and Brexit are dealt with in a new, dedicated chapter.


Author(s):  
Katalin Ligeti

Since long before the entry into force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU), the two highest courts in Europe, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have sought to develop their respective jurisprudence in such a way as to ensure a strong protection of individual rights, whilst avoiding clashes between the decisions taken in Luxembourg and Strasbourg. An important statement in this regard is provided by the Bosphorus judgment, in which the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR recognised the existence of a presumption of equivalent protection of fundamental rights under EU law. The presumption is rebuttable, but expresses the trustful attitude (and a certain degree of deference) of Strasbourg towards the ability of EU law (and of the CJEU) to protect Convention rights.


Author(s):  
Berthold Rittberger

This chapter examines how the European Union acquired distinctive constitution-like features. It begins with a discussion of three routes to constitutionalization: the first is through changes in the EU's primary law; the second focuses on ‘in between’ constitutionalization; and the third leads directly to the European Court of Justice and its jurisprudence. The chapter proceeds by discussing two developments that have shaped the EU constitutional order almost since the beginning: the emergence of a body of EU law constituting a set of higher-order legal rules, and the consolidation of the constitutional principle of representative democracy. It explains how the supremacy and direct effect of EU law, as well as the EU court's concern with the protection of fundamental rights, helped transform the EU into a constitutional polity. It also considers how the extension of the legislative, budgetary, and other powers of the European Parliament animated the constitutional principle.


2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 409-420
Author(s):  
Anna Podolska

Abstract There are various forms of jurisdictional dialogue. In addition to drawing from the case law of another court or seeking direct assistance of such another court in passing the judgment, we can notice in practice situations when by issuing a verdict the courts are communicating with each other. The rulings of the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the free movement of judgments in the European Union and protection of fundamental rights are the example of such activities. Each of these bodies was interpreting separately the extent to which the mechanisms of recognising and executing the judgments may interfere with the level of protection of fundamental rights. A common conclusion concerns assigning the priority to protection of fundamental rights, while individual bodies were determining differently the standards of such protection. The analysed judgments can be construed as a communication between these bodies. Although no direct discussion takes place between these courts, this is still a form of interaction which affects the development of the case law and understanding of the boundaries of mutual recognition of judgments and protection of human rights within judicial proceedings.


10.12737/5251 ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-74
Author(s):  
Габриэлла Белова ◽  
Gabriela Belova ◽  
Мария Хаджипетрова-Лачова ◽  
Maria Hadzhipetrova-Lachova

The authors analyze certain cases considered in recent years by the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of European Union in Luxembourg and associated with providing of asylum to the third country nationals. In individual EU member states there are huge differences in the procedures and protective mechanisms for asylum seekers in their access to work, as well as in the use of mechanism of forced detention. Due to accession of the EU to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the EU should comply the standards set by the Council of Europe. The authors analyze the new approach of the Strasbourg Court in decision MSS v. Belgium and Greece unlike other "Dublin" cases. They also consider certain new judgements of the Court of European Union in Luxembourg, some of which were accepted in order of urgent prejudicial production.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document