Advertisement

Dialogic Constitutionalism and Its Application to Fundamental Rights

Chapter
  • 92 Downloads

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.

References

Primary Sources

  1. Appl. No 12323/11 Michaud v France, ECtHR 6 December 2012Google Scholar
  2. Appl. No 13258/87 M & Co. v The Federal Republic of Germany (1990) Decisions and Reports 64Google Scholar
  3. Appl. No 15318/89 Loizidou v Turkey (1995) 20 E.H.R.R. 99 ECHRGoogle Scholar
  4. Appl. No 24171/05 Karim v Sweden, ECtHR 4 July 2006Google Scholar
  5. Appl. No 24833/94 Matthews v United Kingdom [1999] BHRC 686Google Scholar
  6. Appl. No 27725/10 Samsam Mohammed Hussein and Others v the Netherlands and Italy, ECtHR, 2 April 2013Google Scholar
  7. Appl. No 29217/12 Tarakhel v Switzerland [2014] ECHR 1185Google Scholar
  8. Appl. No 30696/09 MSS v Belgium and Greece [2011] 53 E.H.R.R. 2Google Scholar
  9. Appl. No 33743/03 Dragan and Others v Germany ECtHR 7 October 2004Google Scholar
  10. Appl. No 37201/06 Saadi v Italy, ECtHR 28 February 2008Google Scholar
  11. Appl. No 41738/10 Paposhvili v Belgium, Paposhvili v Belgium, judgment of 13 December 2016 (GC)Google Scholar
  12. Appl. No 45036/98 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Ireland [2005] 42 EHRR 1Google Scholar
  13. Appl. No 45603/05 Budina v Russia, ECtHR 18 June 2009Google Scholar
  14. Appl. No 47287/15 Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary, ECtHR 14 March 2017Google Scholar
  15. Appl. No 5856/72 Tyrer v UK, ECtHR, 25 April 1978Google Scholar
  16. Appl. No 75203/12 Kochieva and Others v Sweden, ECtHR 30 April 2013Google Scholar
  17. Appl. Nos 46827/99 and 46951/99 Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey, ECtHR 4 February 2005Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. C-1/58 Friedrich Stork & Cie v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community ECLI:EU:C:1959:4Google Scholar
  20. C-105/14 Criminal Proceedings against Ivo Taricco and Others ECLI:EU:C:2015:555Google Scholar
  21. C-11/70 Internationale Handelgesellschaft Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr-und Vorratstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel ECLI:EU:C:1970:114Google Scholar
  22. 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:2012:594Google Scholar
  23. C-185/95 Baustahlgewebe GmbH v Commission of the European Communities ECLI:EU:C:1998:608Google Scholar
  24. C-201/16 Majid Shiri v Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl, ECLI:EU:C:2017:805Google Scholar
  25. C-26/62 NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration ECLI:EU:C:1963:1Google Scholar
  26. C-29/69 Erich Stauder v City of Ulm ECLI:EU:C:1969:57Google Scholar
  27. C-327/18 PPU, Minister for Justice and Equality (Deficiencies in the System of Justice), EU:C:2018:586Google Scholar
  28. C-394/12 Shamso Abdullahi v Bundesasylamt ECLI:EU:C:2013:813Google Scholar
  29. C-399/11 Stefano Melloni v Ministerio Fiscal ECLI:EU:C:2013:107Google Scholar
  30. C-4/11 Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Kaveh Puid ECLI:EU:C:2013:740Google Scholar
  31. C-4/73 J. Nold, Kohlen- und Baustoffgroßhandlung v Commission of the European Communities ECLI:EU:C:1975:114Google Scholar
  32. C-40/64 Marcello Sgarlata and others v Commission of the EEC ECLI:EU:C:1965:36Google Scholar
  33. C-42/17 Criminal proceedings against M.A.S. and M.B., ECLI:EU:C:2017:936Google Scholar
  34. C-490/16 A.S. v Republika Slovenija ECLI:EU:C:2017:585Google Scholar
  35. C-528/11 Zuheyr Frayeh Halaf v Darzhavna Agentsia za bezhantsite Pri Ministerskia Savet, ECLI:EU:C:2013:342Google Scholar
  36. C-528/15 Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie v Salah Al Chodor and Others ECLI:EU:C:2017:213Google Scholar
  37. C-571/10 Kamberaj v Istituto per l’Edilizia sociale della Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano (IPES) and Others ECLI:EU:C:2012:233Google Scholar
  38. C-578/16 PPU C.K. and Others v C. K. and Others v Republika Slovenija ECLI:EU:C:2017:12Google Scholar
  39. C-6/64 Flaminio Costa v Ente Nazionale per l’Energia Elettrica (ENEL) ECLI:EU:C:1964:66Google Scholar
  40. C-617/10 Åklagaren v Hans Åkerberg Fransson, EU:C:2013:105Google Scholar
  41. C-63/15 Mehrdad Ghezelbash v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie ECLI:EU:C:2016:409Google Scholar
  42. C-646/16 Khadija Jafari and Zainab Jafari ECLI:EU:C:2017:586Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. 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. 96–116Google Scholar
  45. 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, 4-12Google Scholar
  46. European Commission (2016) Towards a Reform of the Common European Asylum System and Enhancing Legal Avenues to Europe, 6 April 2016, COM (2016) 197 finalGoogle Scholar
  47. 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 finalGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. 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:1960:36Google Scholar
  51. Joined Cases C-187/01 and C-385/01 Hüseyin Gözütok and Klaus Brügge ECLI:EU:C:2003:87Google Scholar
  52. Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru v Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Bremen ECLI:EU:C:2016:198Google Scholar
  53. 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:2011:865Google Scholar
  54. Lissabon (Treaty of Lisbon), 2009 BVerfG 123, 267Google Scholar
  55. Maastricht, BVerfGE 89, 155 - reported in English as Brunner v European Union Treaty [1994] CMLR 57Google Scholar
  56. Minister for Justice and Equality v Celmer (No.4) [2018] IEHC 484Google Scholar
  57. Opinion 2/13 of 18 December 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454Google Scholar
  58. R (Hemmati & Ors) (AP) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] UKSC 56Google Scholar
  59. R (on the application of EM (Eritrea)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 12Google Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Solange I, BVefGE 37, 271 - reported in English as Internationale Handelsgesellschaft [1974] 2 CMLR 540Google Scholar
  62. Solange II, BVerfGE 73, 339 - reported in English as Re Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft [1987] 3 CMLR 225Google Scholar
  63. 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

  1. Avbeli M, Komárek J (2012) Constitutional pluralism in Europe and beyond. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Avbelj M (2018) The European Union under transnational law. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Baquero Cruz J (2008) The legacy of the Maastricht-Urteil and the pluralist movement. Eur Law J 14(4):389–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barents R (2004) The autonomy of community law. Kluwer Law, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Belov M (ed) (2018) Global constitutionalism and its challenges to Westphalian constitutional law. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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):135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Callewaert J (2009) The European convention on human rights and European Union law: a long way to harmony. Eur Hum Rights Law Rev 6:768–783Google Scholar
  10. 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 79–112Google Scholar
  11. Cohen-Jonathan G (2002) Aspects Européens des Droits Fondamentaux, 3rd edn. Montchrestien, ParisGoogle Scholar
  12. Costello C (2016) The human rights of migrants and refugees in European Law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. De Búrca G, Weiler JHH (2011) The Worlds of European constitutionalism. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 19–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Douzinas C (2000) The end of human rights. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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):1–6Google Scholar
  18. Goodwin-Gill G (1996) The refugee in international law, 2nd edn. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Gragl P (2013) The accession of the European Union to the European Convention on human rights. Hart Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 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):13–58Google Scholar
  21. Greer S (2005) Protocol 14 and the future of the European Court of human rights. Public Law:83–106Google Scholar
  22. Greer S (2006) The European convention on human rights: achievements, problems and prospects. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Griffiths J (1986) What is legal pluralism? J Leg Pluralism 18(24):1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 150–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hooghe L, Marks G (2009) A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: from permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. Br J Polit Sci 39(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hopgood S (2006) Keepers of the fire: understanding Amnesty international. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  27. Jaklic K (2014) Constitutional pluralism in the EU. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Komárek J (2014) National constitutional courts in the European constitutional democracy. Int J Const Law 12(3):525–544Google Scholar
  29. Korenica F (2015) The EU accession to the ECHR: between Luxembourg’s search for autonomy and Strasbourg’s credibility on human rights protection. Springer, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krisch N (2008) The open architecture of European human rights law. Modern Law Rev 71(2):183–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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):17–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 97–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 15:117–148Google Scholar
  34. 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):64–87Google Scholar
  35. Morano-Foadi S (2015) Migration and human rights. In: Morano-Foadi S, Vickers L (eds) Fundamental rights in the EU. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 115–138Google Scholar
  36. 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):1071–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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):607–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moravcsik A (2005) The European constitutional compromise and the neofunctionalist legacy. J Eur Public Policy 12(2):349–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Möstl M (2010) Preconditions and limits of mutual recognition. Common Market Law Rev 47(2):405–436Google Scholar
  40. Moyn S (2010) The Last Utopia: human rights in history. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Pescatore P (1968) Les Droits de l’homme et l’intégration Européenne. Cahiers de Droit Européenne 4(6):629–673Google Scholar
  42. 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):65–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Posner E (2014) The twilight of human rights law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Rasmussen H (1986) On law and policy in the European Court of justice. Martinus Nijhoff, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  46. 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 93–132Google Scholar
  47. 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):397–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Scheeck L (2005) The Relationship between the European courts and integration through human rights. ZaöRV 65:837–885Google Scholar
  49. Schütze R (2012) European constitutional law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Skouris V (2005) Fundamental rights and fundamental freedoms: the challenge of striking a delicate balance. Sir Thomas More Lecture, Lincoln’s Inn, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. 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 757–780Google Scholar
  52. Stone Sweet A (2012) A cosmopolitan legal order: constitutional pluralism and rights adjudication in Europe. J Global Const 1(1):53–90Google Scholar
  53. 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 3–30Google Scholar
  54. Tamanaha B (2000) A non-essentialist version of legal pluralism. J Law Soc 27(2):296–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tsagourias N (2007) Transnational constitutionalism, international and European perspectives. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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 131–149Google Scholar
  57. Von Bogdandy A (2019) Principles and challenges of a European doctrine of systemic deficiencies. MPIL Research Paper Series No. 2019-14Google Scholar
  58. Zalar B (2013) Comments on the court of justice of the EU’s developing case law on Asylum. Int J Refug Law 25(2):377–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawOxford Brookes UniversityOxfordUK
  2. 2.Brunel Law SchoolBrunel University LondonUxbridgeUK

Personalised recommendations