A DECADE OF BALANCING WITH EU HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION: BETWEEN NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COMPETENCES AND SOURCES OF LAW , INDIVIDUAL AND SYSTEMIC INTERESTS

M. Lukić, Ljerka Mintas Hodak
{"title":"A DECADE OF BALANCING WITH EU HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION: BETWEEN NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COMPETENCES AND SOURCES OF LAW , INDIVIDUAL AND SYSTEMIC INTERESTS","authors":"M. Lukić, Ljerka Mintas Hodak","doi":"10.25234/eclic/11894","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The path towards establishing and advancing human rights’ protection within the EU legal system seemed straightforward a decade ago. With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU became part of primary law, together with a commitment of accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. In 2010, Protocol 14 to the ECHR entered into force, allowing the EU to accede to the ECHR. A draft agreement on accession was finalized thereafter. In 2014, however, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a negative opinion on the draft accession treaty, citing perceived threats to autonomy of EU law, competence of the EU and powers of the Court. A year earlier, in February 2013, the CJEU rendered judgments in cases Fransson and Melloni whereby it provided crucial rules for interpretation of clauses 51(1) and 53, respectively, of the Charter. The field of application of the Charter was equated with the scope of EU law. Primacy, effectiveness and unity of EU law, both primary and secondary, were prioritized over human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized by international agreements, including the ECHR, as well as by the Member States’ constitutions. The realm of fundamental individual rights remains to this day the decisive grounds for asserting the core principle of EU constitutionality: the autonomy of EU law. Accession to the ECHR remains to this day a proclaimed goal of EU governing bodies, but little palpable progress is being made. Protection of fundamental rights at EU level has remained a point of contention among academics. Some question the very need for its existence, in view of constitutional guarantees by Member States and the ECHR.","PeriodicalId":448091,"journal":{"name":"EU 2020 – lessons from the past and solutions for the future","volume":"79 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EU 2020 – lessons from the past and solutions for the future","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25234/eclic/11894","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The path towards establishing and advancing human rights’ protection within the EU legal system seemed straightforward a decade ago. With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU became part of primary law, together with a commitment of accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. In 2010, Protocol 14 to the ECHR entered into force, allowing the EU to accede to the ECHR. A draft agreement on accession was finalized thereafter. In 2014, however, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a negative opinion on the draft accession treaty, citing perceived threats to autonomy of EU law, competence of the EU and powers of the Court. A year earlier, in February 2013, the CJEU rendered judgments in cases Fransson and Melloni whereby it provided crucial rules for interpretation of clauses 51(1) and 53, respectively, of the Charter. The field of application of the Charter was equated with the scope of EU law. Primacy, effectiveness and unity of EU law, both primary and secondary, were prioritized over human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized by international agreements, including the ECHR, as well as by the Member States’ constitutions. The realm of fundamental individual rights remains to this day the decisive grounds for asserting the core principle of EU constitutionality: the autonomy of EU law. Accession to the ECHR remains to this day a proclaimed goal of EU governing bodies, but little palpable progress is being made. Protection of fundamental rights at EU level has remained a point of contention among academics. Some question the very need for its existence, in view of constitutional guarantees by Member States and the ECHR.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与欧盟人权保护平衡的十年:在国家和国际权限、法律渊源、个人和系统利益之间
十年前,在欧盟法律体系内建立和推进人权保护的道路似乎很简单。随着2009年《里斯本条约》的生效,《欧盟基本权利宪章》与加入《欧洲人权公约》的承诺一起成为欧盟主要法律的一部分。2010年,《欧洲人权公约》第14议定书生效,欧盟得以加入该公约。后来最后确定了一项加入协定草案。然而,2014年,欧盟法院对加入条约草案发表了否定意见,理由是对欧盟法律自治、欧盟权限和法院权力的威胁。一年前,即2013年2月,欧洲法院在Fransson和Melloni案中作出判决,分别为《宪章》第51(1)条和第53条的解释提供了关键规则。《宪章》的适用领域等同于欧盟法律的范围。欧盟法律的首要性、有效性和统一性,无论是首要的还是次要的,都优先于包括《欧洲人权公约》在内的国际协定以及成员国宪法所承认的人权和基本自由。个人基本权利领域至今仍是维护欧盟合宪性核心原则的决定性依据:欧盟法律的自治。直到今天,加入《欧洲人权公约》仍然是欧盟管理机构宣称的目标,但几乎没有明显的进展。在欧盟层面保护基本权利一直是学术界争论的焦点。鉴于会员国和《欧洲人权公约》的宪法保障,有些人质疑其存在的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
MODERN CHALLENGES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHILD’S RIGHT TO KNOW HIS ORIGIN PROCEDURAL RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS AND ACCUSED PERSONS DURING PRE-TRIAL DETENTION – IMPACT OF DETENTION CONDITIONS ON EFFICIENT EXERCISE OF DEFENCE RIGHTS ROLE OF COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION IN ESTABLISHMENT OF EU STANDARDS ON INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY STANDING IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AFTER URGENDA, JULIANA AND COVID-19 CRISES: WHO SHOULD FORCE GOVERNMENTS TO ACT IN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES RELATED TO CLIMATE CHANGE? ATYPICAL FORMS OF EMPLOYMENT – A HINT OF PRECARIOUSNESS? STRUGGLING WITH THE SEGMENTATION AND PRECARISATION OF THE LABOUR MARKET
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1