Week 1
Van Gend en Loos (EU)
- The community constitutes a new legal order
- Introduction of direct effect -> individuals may claim rights directly
under EU law and enforce those rights before national courts when
they are clear and unconditional.
- Van Duyn -> if the deadline for implementing has passed, individuals
van directly appeal to specific EU law ( only works from individual to
government, not horizontal)
-
Internationale Handelsgesellschaft (EU)
The validity of Union laws can not be affected by even the most
fundamental norms within the member stated. The whole of European law
prevails over the whole of national law (primacy of EU law over national
law)
Court of Justice affirms that the validity of EU law may not be tested
against national law
• Because that would undermine uniformity and efficacy of EU law
• Thus: the argument that EU law is not valid because it violates
human rights as protected in national constitutions cannot have any
effect!
Analogous guarantees inherent in EU law must be respected
• “Respect for fundamental rights forms an integral part of the
general principles of law protected by the Court of Justice”
• “The protection of these rights, whilst inspired by the constitutional
traditions of the Member States, must be ensured within framework
of the structure and the objectives of the Community
EU law cannot be tested against fundamental rights guarantees in
national constitutional law
Stefano Melloni v ministerio fiscal (EU)
In the Melloni case, the CJEU clarified that Article 53 of the Charter, which
is about the level of protection the Charter guarantees, only allows
domestic authorities to apply standards of protection of fundamental
rights that are higher, when the EU legal act needs to be implemented into
domestic legislation. This was not the case with Melloni where the EU
legislation harmonizes the law between Member States
This means that when the domestic fundamental rights of a Member State
are in conflict with the EU fundamental rights, the latter takes precedence
over domestic ones. So, basically, the Charter is to be used as a maximum
standard and Member States are not allowed to apply higher standards of
protection of fundamental rights.
Primacy of the EU
, Week 2
Bosphorus case (ECHR)
= level of equivalent protection
When a member state is obligated to do something by international
organization (union), ask yourself, is there discretion in this
implementation?
- Yes? Then it is a normal ECHR case, in which the state can be held
responsible for its actions
- No? Bospherus presumption, so assumption of equivalent protection.
If the Union gives the assignment, the ECHR wil assume that the
Union will want to protect human rights as much as they do.
Human rights protection manifestly deficient? Then Union can be
held accountable
Al Skeidi
Jurisdiction is primarily territorial
State is responsible because they are supposed to protect human rights,
usually between their borders but sometimes that’s not the case. If not,
then maybe jurisdiction because of:
- State agents authority -> if a person acts only because a state told
them so, like a spy, diplomat, assassin etc. If you give someone an
order to do something, you are responsible
- Effective control -> if state has control over a person or over an
area, they are responsible for the human rights
à What if part of the state declares independence? -> state prob
still responsible
Akerberg Fransson (EU)
- In scope of EU law when facts of the case lie in area governed by the
union
Week 3
A and others v. UK and Soering v UK (ECHR)
About whether or not you can derogate from your obligations under the
ECHR -> art. 15
*NO DEROGATION FORM ABSOLUTE RIGHTS
Substantive requirements:
- Public emergency threatening the life of the nation (wide margin of
appreciation)
Actual or imminent
Van Gend en Loos (EU)
- The community constitutes a new legal order
- Introduction of direct effect -> individuals may claim rights directly
under EU law and enforce those rights before national courts when
they are clear and unconditional.
- Van Duyn -> if the deadline for implementing has passed, individuals
van directly appeal to specific EU law ( only works from individual to
government, not horizontal)
-
Internationale Handelsgesellschaft (EU)
The validity of Union laws can not be affected by even the most
fundamental norms within the member stated. The whole of European law
prevails over the whole of national law (primacy of EU law over national
law)
Court of Justice affirms that the validity of EU law may not be tested
against national law
• Because that would undermine uniformity and efficacy of EU law
• Thus: the argument that EU law is not valid because it violates
human rights as protected in national constitutions cannot have any
effect!
Analogous guarantees inherent in EU law must be respected
• “Respect for fundamental rights forms an integral part of the
general principles of law protected by the Court of Justice”
• “The protection of these rights, whilst inspired by the constitutional
traditions of the Member States, must be ensured within framework
of the structure and the objectives of the Community
EU law cannot be tested against fundamental rights guarantees in
national constitutional law
Stefano Melloni v ministerio fiscal (EU)
In the Melloni case, the CJEU clarified that Article 53 of the Charter, which
is about the level of protection the Charter guarantees, only allows
domestic authorities to apply standards of protection of fundamental
rights that are higher, when the EU legal act needs to be implemented into
domestic legislation. This was not the case with Melloni where the EU
legislation harmonizes the law between Member States
This means that when the domestic fundamental rights of a Member State
are in conflict with the EU fundamental rights, the latter takes precedence
over domestic ones. So, basically, the Charter is to be used as a maximum
standard and Member States are not allowed to apply higher standards of
protection of fundamental rights.
Primacy of the EU
, Week 2
Bosphorus case (ECHR)
= level of equivalent protection
When a member state is obligated to do something by international
organization (union), ask yourself, is there discretion in this
implementation?
- Yes? Then it is a normal ECHR case, in which the state can be held
responsible for its actions
- No? Bospherus presumption, so assumption of equivalent protection.
If the Union gives the assignment, the ECHR wil assume that the
Union will want to protect human rights as much as they do.
Human rights protection manifestly deficient? Then Union can be
held accountable
Al Skeidi
Jurisdiction is primarily territorial
State is responsible because they are supposed to protect human rights,
usually between their borders but sometimes that’s not the case. If not,
then maybe jurisdiction because of:
- State agents authority -> if a person acts only because a state told
them so, like a spy, diplomat, assassin etc. If you give someone an
order to do something, you are responsible
- Effective control -> if state has control over a person or over an
area, they are responsible for the human rights
à What if part of the state declares independence? -> state prob
still responsible
Akerberg Fransson (EU)
- In scope of EU law when facts of the case lie in area governed by the
union
Week 3
A and others v. UK and Soering v UK (ECHR)
About whether or not you can derogate from your obligations under the
ECHR -> art. 15
*NO DEROGATION FORM ABSOLUTE RIGHTS
Substantive requirements:
- Public emergency threatening the life of the nation (wide margin of
appreciation)
Actual or imminent
