Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dialogic Constitutionalism and Its Application to Fundamental Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Protection of Fundamental Rights in Europe

  • 233 Accesses

Abstract

This monograph argues that integration is not a project to be aborted, rather it should be based on common values, which include the rule of law and fundamental rights. At the heart of our analysis is the concept of ‘Integration Through Rights’(ITR), as linked to the ‘Ever Closer Union’ formula enshrined in Article 1(2) TEU, on which the theory of constitutional pluralism is legally based. In the chapter “Expanding Theories of Constitutionalism and Legal Pluralism: ‘Integration Through Rights’ in Europe”, we focused on the theories of ‘constitutionalism’ and ‘legal pluralism’ in relation to fundamental rights protection in Europe. The theoretical debate about ‘constitutional pluralism’ is certainly complex and the exact boundaries of this doctrine are often very difficult to draw. Many authors distinguish between ‘pluralism’ and ‘constitutionalism’, giving different explanations to the different terms. ‘Constitutionalism’ is often used in relation to national law but, as highlighted in the chapter “Expanding Theories of Constitutionalism and Legal Pluralism: ‘Integration Through Rights’ in Europe”, the term has also been adopted to define the relationship between the EU and its Member States. In this chapter, we refer to ‘constitutional pluralism’ beyond EU law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Avbeli and Komárek (2012); Moravcsik (2005), pp. 350–351.

  2. 2.

    See the chapter “Integration and Fundamental Rights in Europe”.

  3. 3.

    See Appl. No 15318/89 Loizidou (1995); See also Stone Sweet (2012).

  4. 4.

    Morano-Foadi (2013), pp. 80–81.

  5. 5.

    Ibid.

  6. 6.

    Draft Revised Agreement on the Accession of the EU to the ECHR.

  7. 7.

    Article 3 DAA; See also Gaja (2013); Korenica (2015), pp. 215–218; Mladenov (2015); Gragl (2014).

  8. 8.

    Regulation 604/2013/ EU (Dublin III).

  9. 9.

    See Celmer (No 4) (2018).

  10. 10.

    Interview 1, Luxembourg (13/12/2010).

  11. 11.

    Posner (2014), Hopgood (2006), Moyn (2010) and Douzinas (2000).

  12. 12.

    European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2012.

  13. 13.

    Interview 1, Luxembourg (13/12/2010); Interview 14, Luxembourg (15/12/2010).

  14. 14.

    C-1/58 Stork (1959); C-36, 37, 18 and 40/59 Geitling (1960); C-40/64 Sgarlata (1965).

  15. 15.

    C-1/58 Stork, para 26. Also see C-36, 37, 18 and 40/59 Geitling, paras 438-9.

  16. 16.

    See Morano-Foadi and Andreadakis (2011a), p. 1074; Scheeck (2005), pp. 857–858.

  17. 17.

    Cohen-Jonathan (1994), pp. 90–91.

  18. 18.

    See C-26/62 Van Gend & Loos (1963). See also C-6/64 Costa (1964).

  19. 19.

    Kuijer (2011), p. 18.

  20. 20.

    Pescatore (1968), p. 657.

  21. 21.

    C-29/69 Stauder (1969), para 7.

  22. 22.

    C-11/70 Internationale Handelgesellschaft (1970).

  23. 23.

    C-4/73 Nold (1974).

  24. 24.

    See Morano-Foadi and Andreadakis (2011b), p. 610; Rasmussen (1986), p. 399. He argues that Nold overruled the previous Court’s judgments that only rights growing out of the Member States’ common constitutional traditions were protected by Community law.

  25. 25.

    See Morano-Foadi and Andreadakis (2011a), p. 1073.

  26. 26.

    C185/95 Baustahlgewebe (1998).

  27. 27.

    Cohen-Jonathan (2002), p. 184.

  28. 28.

    The text of Article 53 of the Charter is the following: ‘Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as restricting or adversely affecting human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognised, in their respective fields of application, by Union law and international law and by international agreements to which the Union, the Community or all the Member States are party, including the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and by the Member States’ constitutions.’

  29. 29.

    The text of Article 53 of the ECHR is the following: ‘Nothing in this Convention shall be construed as limiting or derogating from any of the human rights and fundamental freedoms which may be ensured under the laws of any High Contracting Party or under any other agreement to which it is a party.’

  30. 30.

    This provision is intended to maintain the level of protection currently afforded within their respective scope by Union law, national law and international law. Owing to its importance, reference is made to the ECHR. See European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2007.

  31. 31.

    Interview 5E, Luxembourg (18/04/2019).

  32. 32.

    Opinion 2/13 2014.

  33. 33.

    Von Bogdandy (2019)-14, p. 2.

  34. 34.

    Ibid.

  35. 35.

    We refer here to sovereigntist and populistic proposals, which are a clear reflection of the turbulent era in which we live in. See the prologue and the chapter “Integration and Fundamental Rights in Europe”.

  36. 36.

    Pollicino and Repetto (2019).

  37. 37.

    Friedl (2019).

  38. 38.

    See Pollicino (2010); Komárek (2014); Besselink (2014) and Rauchegger (2015 ).

  39. 39.

    Solange I (1974).

  40. 40.

    See Solange II (1987); C-2134/92, Maastricht (1994); Lissabon (2009).

  41. 41.

    Skouris (2005).

  42. 42.

    See Bundesverfassungsgericht (2019).

  43. 43.

    See C-617/10 Fransson (2013); C-399/11 Melloni (2013); C-105/14 Taricco (2015); C-42/17 M.A.S. and M.B. (2017).

  44. 44.

    Friedl (2019).

  45. 45.

    Jaklic (2014), p. 150.

  46. 46.

    Avbelj (2018).

  47. 47.

    Ibid; See also Tsagourias (2007) and Belov (2018).

  48. 48.

    Baquero Cruz (2008), pp. 412–414.

  49. 49.

    Here we refer to the EU fundamental rights and the ECHR and the work of the two Courts. The term ‘European territory’, often evoked in this work, refers to the overlapping territory of the EU and CoE. The European territory covers all the EU Member States’ territory, i.e. the whole European Union.

  50. 50.

    De Búrca and Weiler (2011), p. 3.

  51. 51.

    Halberstam (2011), p. 163.

  52. 52.

    MacCormick (1999), p. 102. For a more detailed discussion on classical pluralism, see Tamanaha (2000); Griffiths (1986), pp. 1–2.

  53. 53.

    Appl. No 15318/89 Loizidou (1995).

  54. 54.

    Sadurski (2009), pp. 397–398.

  55. 55.

    See Stone Sweet and Keller (2008), p. 7; Greer (2005), pp. 96–104. See also Greer (2006), pp. 165–174.

  56. 56.

    Interview 4, Luxembourg (14/12/2010); Interview 14, Luxemburg (15/12/2010); Interview V, Strasbourg (20/6/2012); Interview IX, Strasbourg (20/6/2012).

  57. 57.

    For a definition of this concept, see the chapters “Integration and Fundamental Rights in Europe” and “Expanding Theories of Constitutionalism and Legal Pluralism: ‘Integration Through Rights’ in Europe”, footnotes 20 and 66 respectively.

  58. 58.

    De Witte (2011).

  59. 59.

    Barents (2004), p. 171.

  60. 60.

    Gragl (2013), p. 11.

  61. 61.

    Opinion 2/13 2014, paras. 164–177.

  62. 62.

    See C-6/64 Costa (1964) and C-26/62 Van Gend en Loos (1963).

  63. 63.

    Schütze (2012), p. 311.

  64. 64.

    Krisch (2008), p. 184.

  65. 65.

    Ibid.

  66. 66.

    C-571/10 Kamberaj (2012).

  67. 67.

    Article 6(3) of the Treaty on European Union provides that “Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, shall constitute general principles of the Union’s law”.

  68. 68.

    Hooghe and Marks (2009), p. 2.

  69. 69.

    Appl. No 13258/87 M & Co (1990), Rec. 45.

  70. 70.

    Appl. No 24833/94 Matthews (1999).

  71. 71.

    Appl. No 45036/98 Bosphorus (2006).

  72. 72.

    Appl. No 30696/09 M.S.S. (2011).

  73. 73.

    Appl. No 30696/09 M.S.S. (2011), para 340.

  74. 74.

    Appl. No 12323/11 Michaud (2012).

  75. 75.

    Krisch (2008), p. 198. See also Scheeck (2005), p. 837; Callewaert (2009), pp. 769–770.

  76. 76.

    Regulation 604/2013 (2013) 31–59. This Regulation (Dublin III) replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national, OJ L 50, 25.2.2003 (Dublin II).

  77. 77.

    See Preamble No. 3 Regulation 604/2013/ EU (Dublin III).

  78. 78.

    See Goodwin-Gill (1996), p. 117.

  79. 79.

    See, for example, Joined Cases C-187/01 and C-385/01 Gözütok and Brügge (2003), para 33, where the CJEU in relation to the ne bis in idem principle in criminal law clearly states that Member States should observe the principle of ‘mutual trust in their criminal justice systems and that each of them recognizes the criminal law in force in the other Member States even when the outcome would be different if its own national law were applied’.

    For an academic discussion on the principle, see Möstl (2010); Brouwer (2013), p. 138; Velluti (2015).

  80. 80.

    See for example Appl. No 30696/09 M.S.S. (2011) (ECtHR case) and Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10 N. S. and M. E. (& Others) (2011) (CJEU case).

  81. 81.

    Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10 N. S. and M. E. (& Others) (2011), para 83.

  82. 82.

    Opinion 2/13 (2014), para 191.

  83. 83.

    Joined Cases C-187/01 and C-385/01 Gözütok and Brügge (2003), para. 33.

  84. 84.

    See European Commission (2016), 6.

  85. 85.

    Interview 4D, Luxembourg (18/04/2016); Interview 6F, Luxembourg (19/04/2016).

  86. 86.

    Interview 4D, Luxembourg (18/04/2016).

  87. 87.

    C-327/18 PPU, Minister for Justice and Equality (2018).

  88. 88.

    See, to that effect, C-327/18 PPU, Minister for Justice and Equality (2018), para 36. See also Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 Aranyosi and Căldăraru (2016), para 78.

  89. 89.

    This rule is included in the Dublin II and Dublin III Regulations.

  90. 90.

    The first ECtHR case is Appl. Nos 46827/99 and 46951/99 Mamatkulov and Askarov (2005). For further detail, see Morano-Foadi (2015).

  91. 91.

    Appl. No 27725/10 Samsam Mohammed Hussein (2013).

  92. 92.

    Appl. No 30696/09 MSS (2011).

  93. 93.

    Appl. No 29217/12 Tarakhel (2014).

  94. 94.

    Appl. No 47287/15 Ilias and Ahmed (2017).

  95. 95.

    Appl. No 37201/06 Saadi (2008).

  96. 96.

    Appl. No 30696/09 MSS (2011) para 353.

  97. 97.

    Directive 2013/33/EU.

  98. 98.

    Appl. No 30696/09 MSS (2011), para 251.

  99. 99.

    See on this point, Costello (2016), p. 188.

  100. 100.

    Appl. No 29217/12 Tarakhel (2014), para 103.

  101. 101.

    Appl. No. 45603/05 Budina (2009).

  102. 102.

    Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10 N.S. and M.E (2011).

  103. 103.

    Morano-Foadi (2015), p. 129.

  104. 104.

    Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10 N.S. and M.E. (2011), para 86.

  105. 105.

    Ibid, para 83.

  106. 106.

    Appl. No 45036/98 Bosphorus. See also Zalar (2013), p. 381.

  107. 107.

    C-4/11 Kaveh Puid (2013).

  108. 108.

    Ibid., para 22, where reference is made to Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10 N. S. and M. E (2011).

  109. 109.

    C-179/11 Cimade and GISTI (2012).

  110. 110.

    C-179/11 Cimade and GIST, para 56.

  111. 111.

    C-528/11 Zuheyr Frayeh Halaf (2013), paras 46-47 and 49.

  112. 112.

    C-394/12 Shamso Abdullahi (2013), paras 62 and 64.

  113. 113.

    C-578/16 PPU, C.K (2017), paras 96 and 98.

  114. 114.

    Appl. No 41738/10 Paposhvili (2014), para 143.

  115. 115.

    Appl. No 24171/05 Karim (2006), Appl. No 75203/12 Kochieva (2013).

  116. 116.

    Appl. No 33743/03 Dragan (2004).

  117. 117.

    C-63/15, Mehrdad Ghezelbash (2016); C-646/16 Jafari and Jafari (2017); C-490/16 A.S. v Slovenija (2017); Case C-201/16 Majid Shiri (2017).

  118. 118.

    There are also other cases dealing with detention of asylum seekers and Dublin. See, for example, C-528/15 Policie ČR (2017).

  119. 119.

    R (on the application of EM (Eritrea)) (2014).

  120. 120.

    See Supreme Court (2014) and BBC News (2014). See also R (Hemmati & Ors) (2019).

  121. 121.

    See Morano-Foadi (2015), p. 129.

  122. 122.

    R (on the application of EM (Eritrea)) (2014) paras 56–58.

  123. 123.

    Appl. No 5856/72 Tyrer (1978).

  124. 124.

    See Spielmann (1999), p. 777.

  125. 125.

    European Commission 2019, 8.

References

Primary Sources

  • Appl. No 12323/11 Michaud v France, ECtHR 6 December 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Appl. No 13258/87 M & Co. v The Federal Republic of Germany (1990) Decisions and Reports 64

    Google Scholar 

  • Appl. No 15318/89 Loizidou v Turkey (1995) 20 E.H.R.R. 99 ECHR

    Google Scholar 

  • Appl. No 24171/05 Karim v Sweden, ECtHR 4 July 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Appl. No 24833/94 Matthews v United Kingdom [1999] BHRC 686

    Google Scholar 

  • Appl. No 27725/10 Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others v the Netherlands and Italy, ECtHR, 2 April 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Appl. No 29217/12 Tarakhel v Switzerland [2014] ECHR 1185

    Google Scholar 

  • Appl. No 30696/09 MSS v Belgium and Greece [2011] 53 E.H.R.R. 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Appl. No 33743/03 Dragan and Others v Germany ECtHR 7 October 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Appl. No 37201/06 Saadi v Italy, ECtHR 28 February 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • Appl. No 41738/10 Paposhvili v Belgium, Paposhvili v Belgium, judgment of 13 December 2016 (GC)

    Google Scholar 

  • Appl. No 45036/98 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Ireland [2005] 42 EHRR 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Appl. No 45603/05 Budina v Russia, ECtHR 18 June 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Appl. No 47287/15 Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary, ECtHR 14 March 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Appl. No 5856/72 Tyrer v UK, ECtHR, 25 April 1978

    Google Scholar 

  • Appl. No 75203/12 Kochieva and Others v Sweden, ECtHR 30 April 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Appl. Nos 46827/99 and 46951/99 Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey, ECtHR 4 February 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundesverfassungsgericht (2019) Press Release No. 84/2019 of 27 November 2019, https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2019/bvg19-084.html. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

  • C-1/58 Friedrich Stork & Cie v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community ECLI:EU:C:1959:4

    Google Scholar 

  • C-105/14 Criminal Proceedings against Ivo Taricco and Others ECLI:EU:C:2015:555

    Google Scholar 

  • C-11/70 Internationale Handelgesellschaft Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr-und Vorratstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel ECLI:EU:C:1970:114

    Google Scholar 

  • C-179/11 Cimade and GISTI v Ministre de L’Intérieur, de l’Outre-mer, des Collectivités territoriales et de l’Immigration ECLI:EU:C:2012:594

    Google Scholar 

  • C-185/95 Baustahlgewebe GmbH v Commission of the European Communities ECLI:EU:C:1998:608

    Google Scholar 

  • C-201/16 Majid Shiri v Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl, ECLI:EU:C:2017:805

    Google Scholar 

  • C-26/62 NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration ECLI:EU:C:1963:1

    Google Scholar 

  • C-29/69 Erich Stauder v City of Ulm ECLI:EU:C:1969:57

    Google Scholar 

  • C-327/18 PPU, Minister for Justice and Equality (Deficiencies in the System of Justice), EU:C:2018:586

    Google Scholar 

  • C-394/12 Shamso Abdullahi v Bundesasylamt ECLI:EU:C:2013:813

    Google Scholar 

  • C-399/11 Stefano Melloni v Ministerio Fiscal ECLI:EU:C:2013:107

    Google Scholar 

  • C-4/11 Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Kaveh Puid ECLI:EU:C:2013:740

    Google Scholar 

  • C-4/73 J. Nold, Kohlen- und Baustoffgroßhandlung v Commission of the European Communities ECLI:EU:C:1975:114

    Google Scholar 

  • C-40/64 Marcello Sgarlata and others v Commission of the EEC ECLI:EU:C:1965:36

    Google Scholar 

  • C-42/17 Criminal proceedings against M.A.S. and M.B., ECLI:EU:C:2017:936

    Google Scholar 

  • C-490/16 A.S. v Republika Slovenija ECLI:EU:C:2017:585

    Google Scholar 

  • C-528/11 Zuheyr Frayeh Halaf v Darzhavna Agentsia za bezhantsite Pri Ministerskia Savet, ECLI:EU:C:2013:342

    Google Scholar 

  • C-528/15 Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie v Salah Al Chodor and Others ECLI:EU:C:2017:213

    Google Scholar 

  • C-571/10 Kamberaj v Istituto per l’Edilizia sociale della Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano (IPES) and Others ECLI:EU:C:2012:233

    Google Scholar 

  • C-578/16 PPU C.K. and Others v C. K. and Others v Republika Slovenija ECLI:EU:C:2017:12

    Google Scholar 

  • C-6/64 Flaminio Costa v Ente Nazionale per l’Energia Elettrica (ENEL) ECLI:EU:C:1964:66

    Google Scholar 

  • C-617/10 Åklagaren v Hans Åkerberg Fransson, EU:C:2013:105

    Google Scholar 

  • C-63/15 Mehrdad Ghezelbash v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie ECLI:EU:C:2016:409

    Google Scholar 

  • C-646/16 Khadija Jafari and Zainab Jafari ECLI:EU:C:2017:586

    Google Scholar 

  • Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national, OJ L 50, 25.2.2003 (Dublin II)

    Google Scholar 

  • Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 96–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Draft Revised Agreement on the Accession of the European Union to the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as Appendix 1 in Final Report to the CDDH, 47+1 (2013) 008rev2, 10 June 2013, 4-12

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2016) Towards a Reform of the Common European Asylum System and Enhancing Legal Avenues to Europe, 6 April 2016, COM (2016) 197 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2019) Strengthening the Rule of Law within the Union - A Blueprint for Action. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Brussel. COM(2019) 343 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2012) Bringing the Charter to Life: Opportunities and Challenges of Putting the Charter of Fundamental Rights into Practice. Copenhagen Seminar Report, Danish Presidency of the Council of the EU and EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, Copenhagen, 15-16 March 2012 https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/copenhagen-seminar-report.pdf. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

  • European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, EU Charter of Fundamental rights: Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Official Journal of the European Union C 303/17 - 14.12.2007, https://fra.europa.eu/en/charterpedia/article/53-level-protection. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

  • Joined C-36, 37, 18 and 40/59 Präsident Ruhrkolen-Verkaufsgesellschaft mbH, Geitling Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft mbH, Mausegatt Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft mbH and I. Nold KG v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community ECLI:EU:C:1960:36

    Google Scholar 

  • Joined Cases C-187/01 and C-385/01 Hüseyin Gözütok and Klaus Brügge ECLI:EU:C:2003:87

    Google Scholar 

  • Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru v Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Bremen ECLI:EU:C:2016:198

    Google Scholar 

  • Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10 N. S. v Secretary of State for the Home Department and M. E. and Others v Refugee Applications Commissioner and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform ECLI:EU:C:2011:865

    Google Scholar 

  • Lissabon (Treaty of Lisbon), 2009 BVerfG 123, 267

    Google Scholar 

  • Maastricht, BVerfGE 89, 155 - reported in English as Brunner v European Union Treaty [1994] CMLR 57

    Google Scholar 

  • Minister for Justice and Equality v Celmer (No.4) [2018] IEHC 484

    Google Scholar 

  • Opinion 2/13 of 18 December 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454

    Google Scholar 

  • R (Hemmati & Ors) (AP) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] UKSC 56

    Google Scholar 

  • R (on the application of EM (Eritrea)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 12

    Google Scholar 

  • Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast), OJ L180/2013 (Dublin III)

    Google Scholar 

  • Solange I, BVefGE 37, 271 - reported in English as Internationale Handelsgesellschaft [1974] 2 CMLR 540

    Google Scholar 

  • Solange II, BVerfGE 73, 339 - reported in English as Re Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft [1987] 3 CMLR 225

    Google Scholar 

  • Supreme Court (2014) R (on the application of EM (Eritrea)) (appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (respondent) [2014] UKSC 12. Press Summary. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2012-0272-press-summary.pdf. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

Secondary Sources

  • Avbeli M, Komárek J (2012) Constitutional pluralism in Europe and beyond. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Avbelj M (2018) The European Union under transnational law. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Baquero Cruz J (2008) The legacy of the Maastricht-Urteil and the pluralist movement. Eur Law J 14(4):389–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barents R (2004) The autonomy of community law. Kluwer Law, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • BBC News (2014) Migrants backed by Court in Italy deportation fight, 19 February 2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26267245. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

  • Belov M (ed) (2018) Global constitutionalism and its challenges to Westphalian constitutional law. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Besselink L (2014) The ECJ as the European “Supreme Court”: setting aside citizens’ rights for EU law supremacy. In: VerfassungBlog, 18 August 2014, https://verfassungsblog.de/ecj-european-supreme-court-setting-aside-citizens-rights-eu-law-supremacy. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

  • Brouwer E (2013) Mutual trust and the Dublin regulation: protection of fundamental rights in the EU and the Burden of Proof. Utrecht Law Rev 9(1):135–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callewaert J (2009) The European convention on human rights and European Union law: a long way to harmony. Eur Hum Rights Law Rev 6:768–783

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Jonathan G (1994) Les Rapports Entre la Convention Européenne des Droits de l’homme et les Autres Traités Conclus par les Etats Parties. In: Lawson R, De Blois M (eds) The dynamics of the protection of human rights in Europe: essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, vol III. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 79–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Jonathan G (2002) Aspects Européens des Droits Fondamentaux, 3rd edn. Montchrestien, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Costello C (2016) The human rights of migrants and refugees in European Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • De Búrca G, Weiler JHH (2011) The Worlds of European constitutionalism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De Witte B (2011) The European Union as an international legal experiment. In: De Búrca G, Weiler JHH (eds) The worlds of European constitutionalism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 19–56

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Douzinas C (2000) The end of human rights. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedl P (2019) New laws of forgetting – the German Constitutional Court on the right to be forgotten. In: European Law Blog, 12 December 2019, https://europeanlawblog.eu/2019/12/12/new-laws-of-forgetting-the-german-constitutional-court-on-the-right-to-be-forgotten/. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

  • Gaja G (2013) The ‘Co-Respondent Mechanisms’ according to the draft agreement for the accession of the EU to the ECHR. ESIL Reflect 2(1):1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin-Gill G (1996) The refugee in international law, 2nd edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gragl P (2013) The accession of the European Union to the European Convention on human rights. Hart Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gragl P (2014) A giant leap for European human rights: the final agreement on the European Union’s accession to the European Convention on human rights. Common Market Law Rev 51(1):13–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Greer S (2005) Protocol 14 and the future of the European Court of human rights. Public Law:83–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Greer S (2006) The European convention on human rights: achievements, problems and prospects. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths J (1986) What is legal pluralism? J Leg Pluralism 18(24):1–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halberstam D (2011) Local, global and plural constitutionalism: Europe meets the World. In: De Búrca G, Weiler JHH (eds) The Worlds of European constitutionalism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 150–202

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe L, Marks G (2009) A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: from permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. Br J Polit Sci 39(1):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopgood S (2006) Keepers of the fire: understanding Amnesty international. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaklic K (2014) Constitutional pluralism in the EU. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Komárek J (2014) National constitutional courts in the European constitutional democracy. Int J Const Law 12(3):525–544

    Google Scholar 

  • Korenica F (2015) The EU accession to the ECHR: between Luxembourg’s search for autonomy and Strasbourg’s credibility on human rights protection. Springer, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Krisch N (2008) The open architecture of European human rights law. Modern Law Rev 71(2):183–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuijer M (2011) The accession of the European Union to the ECHR: a gift for the ECHR’s 60th anniversary or an unwelcome intruder at the party? Amsterdam Law Forum 3(4):17–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick N (1999) Juridical pluralism and the risk of constitutional conflict. In: MacCormick N (ed) Questioning sovereignty: law, state, and nation in the European commonwealth. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 97–121

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mladenov M (2015) The devil in the detail: the impact of opinion 2/13 on the co-respondent mechanism and the prior involvement procedure. UC Dublin Law Rev 15:117–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Morano-Foadi S (2013) Fundamental rights in Europe: constitutional dialogue between the Court of Justice of the EU and the European court of human rights. Sortus Oñati J Socio-Legal Stud 5(1):64–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Morano-Foadi S (2015) Migration and human rights. In: Morano-Foadi S, Vickers L (eds) Fundamental rights in the EU. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 115–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Morano-Foadi S, Andreadakis S (2011a) The convergence of the European legal system in the treatment of Third Country Nationals in Europe: the ECJ and ECtHR jurisprudence. Eur J Int Law 22(4):1071–1088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morano-Foadi S, Andreadakis S (2011b) Reflections on the architecture of the EU after the Treaty of Lisbon: the European judicial approach to fundamental rights. Eur Law J 17(5):607–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik A (2005) The European constitutional compromise and the neofunctionalist legacy. J Eur Public Policy 12(2):349–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Möstl M (2010) Preconditions and limits of mutual recognition. Common Market Law Rev 47(2):405–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Moyn S (2010) The Last Utopia: human rights in history. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Pescatore P (1968) Les Droits de l’homme et l’intégration Européenne. Cahiers de Droit Européenne 4(6):629–673

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollicino O (2010) The new relationship between National and the European Courts after the enlargement of Europe: towards a unitary theory of jurisprudential supranational law? Yearb Eur Law 29(1):65–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollicino O, Repetto G (2019) Not to be pushed aside: the Italian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice. In: Verfassungblog, 27 Feb 2019, https://verfassungsblog.de/not-to-be-pushed-aside-the-italian-constitutional-court-and-the-european-court-of-justice/. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

  • Posner E (2014) The twilight of human rights law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen H (1986) On law and policy in the European Court of justice. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauchegger C (2015) The interplay between the charter and National constitutions after Åkerberg Fransson and Melloni: has the CJEU embraced the challenges of multilevel fundamental rights protection? In: De Vries S, Bernitz U, Weatherill S (eds) The EU charter of fundamental rights as a binding instrument: five years old and growing. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 93–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadurski W (2009) Partnering with Strasbourg: constitutionalisation of the European Court of human rights, the accession of Central and Eastern European States to the Council of Europe and the idea of pilot judgments. Hum Rights Law Rev 9(3):397–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheeck L (2005) The Relationship between the European courts and integration through human rights. ZaöRV 65:837–885

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze R (2012) European constitutional law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Skouris V (2005) Fundamental rights and fundamental freedoms: the challenge of striking a delicate balance. Sir Thomas More Lecture, Lincoln’s Inn, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Spielmann D (1999) Human rights case law in the Strasbourg and Luxembourg courts: conflicts, inconsistencies, and complementariness. In: Alston P, Bustelo M, Heenan L (eds) The EU and human rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 757–780

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet A (2012) A cosmopolitan legal order: constitutional pluralism and rights adjudication in Europe. J Global Const 1(1):53–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet A, Keller H (2008) The reception of the ECHR in national legal orders. In: Keller H, Stone Sweet A (eds) A Europe of rights: the impact of the ECHR on national legal systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamanaha B (2000) A non-essentialist version of legal pluralism. J Law Soc 27(2):296–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsagourias N (2007) Transnational constitutionalism, international and European perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Velluti S (2015) Who has the right to have rights? The judgments of the CJEU and ECtHR as building blocks for a European Ius Commune in Asylum law. In: Morano-Foadi S, Vickers L (eds) Fundamental rights in the EU. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 131–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bogdandy A (2019) Principles and challenges of a European doctrine of systemic deficiencies. MPIL Research Paper Series No. 2019-14

    Google Scholar 

  • Zalar B (2013) Comments on the court of justice of the EU’s developing case law on Asylum. Int J Refug Law 25(2):377–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK

    Sonia Morano-Foadi

  2. Brunel Law School, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK

    Stelios Andreadakis

Authors
  1. Sonia Morano-Foadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stelios Andreadakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Morano-Foadi, S., Andreadakis, S. (2020). Dialogic Constitutionalism and Its Application to Fundamental Rights. In: Protection of Fundamental Rights in Europe. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42367-4_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42367-4_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-42366-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-42367-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation