Accession of the EU to the ECHR: Issues of the co-respondent mechanism

Inga Daukšienė , Simas Grigonis
{"title":"Accession of the EU to the ECHR: Issues of the co-respondent mechanism","authors":"Inga Daukšienė ,&nbsp;Simas Grigonis","doi":"10.1016/j.icj.2016.01.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>On December 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union adopted one of the most controversial decisions in recent decades—the famous Opinion 2/13 that precluded the European Union from acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights. This article engages in the analysis of the co-respondent mechanism—one of the most significant features of the Draft Agreement for the accession of the European Union to the Convention. The co-respondent mechanism was intentionally designed to preserve the specific characteristics of the European Union law by precluding the European Court of Human Rights from solving the complex questions of the internal competence division of the European Union. However, notwithstanding that the European Commission and most of the Member States had not seen any significant threats caused by the mechanism, the Luxembourg court rejected the mechanism due to the European Union’s motives for the protection of autonomy. This article analyzes and assesses the objections presented by the Court.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":32140,"journal":{"name":"International Comparative Jurisprudence","volume":"1 2","pages":"Pages 98-105"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.icj.2016.01.001","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Comparative Jurisprudence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351667416000020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

On December 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union adopted one of the most controversial decisions in recent decades—the famous Opinion 2/13 that precluded the European Union from acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights. This article engages in the analysis of the co-respondent mechanism—one of the most significant features of the Draft Agreement for the accession of the European Union to the Convention. The co-respondent mechanism was intentionally designed to preserve the specific characteristics of the European Union law by precluding the European Court of Human Rights from solving the complex questions of the internal competence division of the European Union. However, notwithstanding that the European Commission and most of the Member States had not seen any significant threats caused by the mechanism, the Luxembourg court rejected the mechanism due to the European Union’s motives for the protection of autonomy. This article analyzes and assesses the objections presented by the Court.

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
欧盟加入欧洲人权公约:共同被告机制的问题
2014年12月,欧盟法院通过了近几十年来最具争议的决定之一——著名的第2/13号意见,该意见禁止欧盟加入《欧洲人权公约》。本文对共同被告机制进行了分析,这是欧盟加入公约协定草案的最重要特征之一。共同被告机制是有意设计的,目的是通过排除欧洲人权法院解决欧洲联盟内部权限划分的复杂问题来保持欧洲联盟法律的具体特点。然而,尽管欧洲委员会和大多数成员国没有看到该机制造成任何重大威胁,卢森堡法院还是以欧洲联盟保护自治的动机为由拒绝了该机制。本文分析和评估了法院提出的反对意见。
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
THE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DOMESTIC REFORMS TOWARDS STRENGTHENING THE RULE OF LAW, IN GEORGIA, MOLDOVA, AND UKRAINE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE: WESTERN AND ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVES SHOULD THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE DEVELOP A POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE CONDITIONS FOR THE BANKRUPTCY OF NATURAL PERSONS: WHICH BALTIC STATE IS THE MOST ATTRACTIVE FOR BANKRUPTCY? WHAT CAN FRANCE LEARN FROM THE CZECH REPUBLIC’S APPROACH TO THE ISSUE OF WEARING (ISLAMIC) RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS
×
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