Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

European Integration Through Rights: A Balancing Exercise and the Quest for Uniformity

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

  • 259 Accesses

Abstract

The previous chapter offered a detailed overview of how important it is for the two overlapping legal orders, the EU and the CoE and their respective Courts, not just to co-exist, but to interact with the view of achieving harmony and consistency in their approaches. Such consistency is paving the way for further integration. We have adopted the dialogic constitutionalism doctrine as a facilitator towards a new judicial harmony in Europe in the area of human rights protection. The discussion in the present chapter focuses more to the pursuit of harmony and consistency of the two Courts’ techniques for balancing uniformity and diversity.

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.

    Article 1 of Protocol No. 15 amending the European Convention on Human Rights.

  2. 2.

    Brems (2003), p. 82; Letsas (2013).

  3. 3.

    Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/02, Preamble.

  4. 4.

    Interview III, Strasbourg (19/6/2012); Interview 9, Luxembourg (15/12/2010) and Interview 10, Luxembourg (15/12/2010). It is worth mentioning here that the notion of “marge d’appréciation” in French (the working language of the Court) is indistinctly translated by both “margin of appreciation” and “(margin of) discretion” in the English versions of the CJEU judgements. However, there is a theoretical distinction between the notions of “margin of appreciation” and “margin of discretion”, which can be noticed in the judgement of the General Court in T-184/97 BP Chemicals (2000). See also Bouveresse (2010), pp. 50–66.

  5. 5.

    Vesterdorf (2006), pp. 610–611; Claes and De Visser (2012), p. 100. See also Lenaerts (2007), pp. 1625–1659.

  6. 6.

    See C-544/10 Deutsches Weintor (2012); C-70/10 Scarlett v. SABAM (2011); C-12/11 McDonagh v Ryanair (2013); C-283/11 Sky Österreich (2013); C-34/10 Brüstle (2011). See also Reynolds (2016), pp. 643–677; Nic Shuibhne (2019), pp. 111–126.

  7. 7.

    De Cecco (2014), p. 402.

  8. 8.

    See Morano-Foadi and Andreadakis (2011), pp. 595–610. See also Korenica (2015), pp. 35–70; Stone Sweet and Stranz (2012), pp. 92–108; Wiener et al. (2019).

  9. 9.

    De Vries (2013), p. 169.

  10. 10.

    See Dworkin (1977).

  11. 11.

    Interview 4, Luxembourg (14/12/2012); Interview 2B, Luxembourg (15/4/2016); Interview 4D, Luxembourg (18/4/2019); Interview 1A, Luxembourg (15/4/2016), Interview 13, Luxembourg (15/12/2010) and Interview 17, Luxembourg (16/12/2010). See also Samex (1983), paras 1055-56 per Bingham J.

  12. 12.

    Interview 9, Luxembourg (15/12/2010); Interview 10, Luxembourg (15/12/2010) and Interview 16, Luxembourg (16/12/2010).

  13. 13.

    Interview 4D, Luxembourg (18/4/2016). For a comparison, see Derlén and Lindholm (2017), p. 648; De Búrca (2014).

  14. 14.

    Interview 3, Luxembourg (14/12/2010); Interview 4, Luxembourg (14/12/2010); Interview 10, Luxembourg (15/12/2010); Interview 14, Luxemburg (15/12/2010).

  15. 15.

    Interviews 2B, Luxembourg (15/4/2016); Interview 3, Luxembourg (13/12/2010); Interview 4, Luxembourg (14/12/2010); Interview 9, Luxembourg (15/12/2010); Interview 10, Luxembourg (15/12/2010) and Interview 14, Luxembourg (15/12/2010).

  16. 16.

    Interview 14, Luxembourg (15/12/2010).

  17. 17.

    C-26/62 Van Gend en Loos (1963).

  18. 18.

    Interview 9, Luxembourg (15/12/2010), Interview 14, Luxemburg (15/12/2010) and Interview 17, Luxembourg (16/12/2010). The same point was made by several scholars as well; see Krommendijk (2015), pp. 812–835; Douglas-Scott (2013), p. 163.

  19. 19.

    Interview 7, Luxembourg (14/12/2010); Interview 11, Luxembourg (15/12/2010) and Interview IV, Strasbourg (19/6/2012).

  20. 20.

    Interview 1, Luxembourg (13/12/2010), Interview 3, Luxembourg (13/12/2010), Interview 8, Luxembourg (14/12/2010), Interview 15, Luxembourg (15/12/2010), Interview 16, Luxembourg (16/12/2010) and Interview 18, Luxembourg (10/12/2010).

  21. 21.

    Interview II, Strasbourg (18/6/2012); Interview IV, Strasbourg (19/6/2012); Interview 4, Luxembourg (14/12/2010); Interview 7, Luxembourg (14/12/2010); Interview 10, Luxembourg (15/12/2010); Interview 14, Luxemburg (15/12/2010).

  22. 22.

    Interviews 2B, Luxembourg (15/4/2016); Interview 5E, Luxembourg (19/4/2016); Interview 6, Luxembourg (14/12/2010), Interview 7, Luxembourg (14/12/2010), Interview 7G, Luxembourg (19/4/2016), Interview 11, Luxembourg (15/12/2010) and Interview 12, Luxembourg (15/12/2010).

  23. 23.

    Gargarella (2014), p. 5; Tushnet (2009), p. 214.

  24. 24.

    Douglas-Scott (2013).

  25. 25.

    See also Groussot and Thor Petursson (2012), p. 53; Greer (2004), p. 413.

  26. 26.

    Interviews 1A, Luxembourg (15/4/2016); Interview 3, Luxembourg (13/12/2010) and Interview 7G, Luxembourg (19/04/2016).

  27. 27.

    Interviews I, Strasbourg (18/6/2012); Interview II, Strasbourg (18/6/2012); Interview III, Strasbourg (19/6/2012); Interview IV, Strasbourg (19/6/2012) and Interview IX, Strasbourg (20/6/2012).

  28. 28.

    Interview IX, Strasbourg (20/6/2012).

  29. 29.

    See Brauch (2009), p. 277; Walton (2014), pp. 995–997.

  30. 30.

    Interview III, Strasbourg (19/6/2012).

  31. 31.

    Vogiatzis (2019), p. 446.

  32. 32.

    Dzehtsiarou (2015), pp. 39–40.

  33. 33.

    See Appl No 9532/81 Rees (1986), Appl No 10843/84 Cossey (1990), Appl No 28957/95 Goodwin (2002) and Appl No 25680/94 I v UK (2002). In the two last cases, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR unanimously concluded that the practice of restricting gender in national law to the one registered at birth infringed both the right to respect for private life and the right to marry, contrary to the guarantees of the ECHR.

  34. 34.

    Interview I, Strasbourg (18/6/2012) and Interview III, Strasbourg (19/6/2012).

  35. 35.

    Interview I, Strasbourg (18/6/2012); Interview IV, Strasbourg (19/6/2012) and Interview 5, Luxembourg (14/12/2010).

  36. 36.

    Interview III, Strasbourg (19/6/2012).

  37. 37.

    Gerards (2018), pp. 495–515; Villa (2017), p. 393; Gerards (2017), p. 237.

  38. 38.

    See Council of Europe (2000), Item 2.3, 64 and Kokott and Sobotta (2015), p. 73.

  39. 39.

    Interview 1, Luxembourg (13/12/2010); Interview 5E, Luxembourg (19/04/2016); Interview 6, Luxembourg (14/12/2010) Interview 7G, Luxembourg (19/4/2016), Interview 11, Luxembourg (15/12/2010); Interview 12 Luxembourg (15/12/2010) and Interview 18, Luxembourg 10/12/2010). Various different terms for referring to the different forms of exchanges, such as ‘transnational judicial dialogue’, ‘conversation’, ‘judicial interaction’ and ‘judicial cooperation’. See Rosas (2007), pp. 2–3; Tremblay (2005), pp. 617–648; Jacobs (2003), pp. 54–87; Bobek (2013); Slaughter (2009); Claes et al. (2013); Morano-Foadi (2013), pp. 64–87.

  40. 40.

    Arnull (2012), p. 133.

  41. 41.

    Knight (2016), pp. 715–719. Catherine Dupré argues that human dignity is not only the foundation of human rights and democracy in each constitutional order, it is also what brings all the constitutional orders together and what gives European constitutionalism its unique identity and dynamic. See Dupré (2016), p. 8.

  42. 42.

    Ibid., 15.

  43. 43.

    Bagaric and Allan (2006), p. 263.

  44. 44.

    See McCrudden (2008), p. 724; Costa (2013), pp. 393–402.

  45. 45.

    Dupré (2016), p. 91. See also Waldron (2012), p. 200.

  46. 46.

    Lenaerts (2003), p. 873; Weiss (2011), p. 64. See also Jones (2012), p. 281.

  47. 47.

    C-36/02 Omega (2004).

  48. 48.

    Dupré (2016), p. 91. See also Olivetti (2010), p. 4; Heselhaus and Hemsley (2019).

  49. 49.

    Amongst others, see Bulterman and Kranenborg (2006), pp. 93–101; Chu (2006), p. 85; Schwarze (2013), p. 257.

  50. 50.

    Omega, para 34. See also AG Opinion Stix-Hackl in Omega, paras 82-91.

  51. 51.

    Pretty v UK (2002), para 65.

  52. 52.

    C-377/98 Netherlands v EP and Council (2001).

  53. 53.

    Dupré (2014), p. 14; Morijn (2006), p. 15.

  54. 54.

    Lenaerts and Gutiérrez-Fons (2010), pp. 1667–1668. See also Lenaerts (2011), p. 1338.

  55. 55.

    See Ackermann (2005), p. 1120.

  56. 56.

    Lenaerts and Gutiérrez-Fons (2010), p. 1663.

  57. 57.

    Fetzer and Smith (2004), p. 445.

  58. 58.

    Chalmers et al. (2019), pp. 241–242.

  59. 59.

    Bröhmer (2004), p. 756.

  60. 60.

    Cheyne (2014), pp. 43–44.

  61. 61.

    Tridimas (2006), p. 341; Nic Shuibhne (2009), p. 254. See also Eeckhout (2011).

  62. 62.

    See Wollenschlager (2018), pp. 23–49; Vigano (2018), pp. 21 and 22; Komárek (2014), pp. 525–544; Dani (2017), pp. 801–814.

    See also C-617/10 Fransson (2013), para 21; C-418/11 Texdata (2013), para 73; C-399/11 Melloni (2013), para 60; C-105/14 Taricco (2015); C-42/17 M.A.S. and M.B. (2017).

  63. 63.

    See McCrudden (2008), p. 683.

  64. 64.

    C-168/91 Konstantinidis (1993).

  65. 65.

    Opinion of AG Jacobs in Konstantinidis, para 39.

  66. 66.

    C-13/94 P v S (1996).

  67. 67.

    P v S, para. 22. See also Opinion of AG Poiares Maduro in Coleman, paras 8 – 10, 12 – 13, 15 and 22.

  68. 68.

    Interview 1, Luxembourg (13/12/2010); Interview 5, Luxembourg (14/12/2010) and Interview 8, Luxembourg (14/12/2010).

  69. 69.

    Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 Aranyosi and Căldăraru (2016), para 85.

  70. 70.

    C-179/11 Cimade (2012), para 42.

  71. 71.

    C-34/10 Brüstle (2001).

  72. 72.

    C-34/10 Brüstle (2001), para 32.

  73. 73.

    See Lenaerts (2013).

  74. 74.

    Appl No 66069/09 Vinter (2016).

  75. 75.

    See Mavronicola (2014), p. 292; Van Zyl et al. (2014), p. 59.

  76. 76.

    Vinter, paras 59-76. Reference was also made to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers Resolution 76(2) of 17 February 1976; Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers Recommendation 2003(23) of 9 October 2003; Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, Recommendation 2003(22) of 24 September 2003; Article 5(2) of the Framework Decision of the Council of the European Union of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant. See also Worsaae Rasmussen (2007).

  77. 77.

    Brauch (2004), p. 147.

  78. 78.

    Appl No 6833/74 Marckx (1979), para 19.

  79. 79.

    Vinter, paras 59-81.

  80. 80.

    Vinter, para 113.

  81. 81.

    Life Imprisonment, 45 BVerfGE 187, 21 June 1977.

  82. 82.

    Dupré (2016), p. 98. See also Costa (2013), pp. 393–402.

  83. 83.

    Vinter, paras 105 and 120.

  84. 84.

    Dupré (2016), p. 99.

  85. 85.

    Interview I, Strasbourg (18/6/2012); Interview II, Strasbourg (18/6/2012) and Interview IX, Strasbourg (20/6/2012). See amongst others, Dzehtsiarou (2011), pp. 1730–1745; Morawa (2002), p. 5; Brems (2001).

  86. 86.

    See Lenaerts (2010), p. 1654.

  87. 87.

    Opinion of AG Lagrange in C-14/61 Hoogovens, paras 283 - 284. See also Opinion of AG Kokkott in C-550/07 P Akzo, paras 94 – 95.

  88. 88.

    See Omega. See also C-112/00 Schmidberger (2003); C-208/09 Sayn-Wittgenstein (2011); C-244/06 Dynamic Medien (2008); C-314/12 Telekabel (2014).

  89. 89.

    Tridimas (2006), p. 1.

  90. 90.

    Weatherill (2013), p. 22.

  91. 91.

    McCrudden (2008).

  92. 92.

    Smouts (1995), p. 150.

  93. 93.

    Cruz Villalón (2012), p. 1135.

  94. 94.

    Forowicz (2011), p. 96.

  95. 95.

    Dehousse (2001).

  96. 96.

    See Polakiewicz (2016).

References

Primary Sources

  • Appl. No 10843/84 Cossey v the United Kingdom [1990] ECHR 21, (1991) 13 EHRR 622

    Google Scholar 

  • Appl. No 28957/95 Christine Goodwin v United Kingdom, [2002] ECHR 588

    Google Scholar 

  • Appl. No 6833/74 Marckx v Belgium (1979) 2 EHRR 330

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • C-112/00 Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v Republik Österreich ECLI:EU:C:2003:333

    Google Scholar 

  • C-13/94 P v S and Cornwall County Council [1996] ECLI:EU:C:1996:170

    Google Scholar 

  • C-168/91 Christos Konstantinidis v Stadt Altensteig - Standesamt and Landratsamt Calw - Ordnungsamt ECLI:EU:C:1993:109

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • C-377/98 Kingdom of the Netherlands v European Parliament and Council of the European Union ECLI:EU:C:2001:523

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe (2000) Gazette Committee of Ministers, No. V/2000, Decision of 711th Meeting

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe (1976) Committee of Ministers Resolution 76(2) on the treatment of long-term prisoners. 17 February 1976, https://rm.coe.int/16804f2385. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

  • Council of Europe (2003) Recommendation Rec(2003)22 to Member States on Conditional Release (Parole). Committee of Ministers, Recommendation 2003(22) of 24 September 2003, https://rm.coe.int/16800ccb5d. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

  • Council of the European Union (2002) Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant. OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/02

    Google Scholar 

  • Customs and Excise Commissioners v ApS Samex [1983]1 All ER 1042

    Google Scholar 

  • Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU Aranyosi and Căldăraru ECLI:EU:C:2016:198

    Google Scholar 

  • Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in C-168/91 Christos Konstantinidis v Stadt Altensteig - Standesamt and Landratsamt Calw – Ordnungsamt ECLI:EU:C:1992:504

    Google Scholar 

  • Opinion of Advocate General Lagrange C-14/61 Hoogovens v High Authority ECLI:EU:C:1962:19

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretty v United Kingdom [2002] 35 EHRR 1

    Google Scholar 

  • T-184/97 BP Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the European Communities, ECLI:EU:T:2000:217

    Google Scholar 

  • C-179/11 Cimade, 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-208/09 Sayn-Wittgenstein v Landeshauptmann Von Wien ECLI:EU:C:2010:806

    Google Scholar 

  • C-244/06 Dynamic Medien Vertriebs GmbH v Avides Media AG ECLI:EU:C:2008:85

    Google Scholar 

  • C-283/11 Sky Österreich GmbH v Österreichischer Rundfunk EU:C:2013:28

    Google Scholar 

  • Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro in C-303/06 S. Coleman v Attridge Law and Steve Law ECLI:EU:C:2008:61

    Google Scholar 

  • C-314/12 UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH and Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft mbH ECLI:EU:C:2014:192

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • C-418/11 Texdata Software GmbH EU:C:2013:588

    Google Scholar 

  • C-544/10 Deutsches Weintor eG v Land Rheinland-Pfalz ECLI:EU:C:2012:526

    Google Scholar 

  • Opinion of Advocate General Kokkot in C-550/07 P Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd v European Commission ECLI:EU:C:2010:229

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • C-34/10 Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace eV ECLI:EU:C:2011:669

    Google Scholar 

  • C-36/02 Omega Spielhallen- undAutomatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn ECLI:EU:C:2004:614

    Google Scholar 

  • Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl in C-36/02 Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn ECLI:EU:C:2004:162

    Google Scholar 

  • C-70/10 Scarlett v SABAM, EU:C:2011:771

    Google Scholar 

  • Life Imprisonment 45 BVerfGE 187, Decision of 21 June 1977

    Google Scholar 

  • Appl. No 9532/81 Rees v United Kingdom, ECtHR 17 October 1986

    Google Scholar 

  • Appl. No 25680/94 I v United Kingdom, ECtHR 11 July 2002

    Google Scholar 

  • C-12/11 Denise McDonagh v Ryanair Ltd EU:C:2013:43

    Google Scholar 

  • Appl. Nos 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10 Vinter and Others v United Kingdom [2016] III ECHR 317

    Google Scholar 

Secondary Sources

  • Ackermann T (2005) Case C-36/02, Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn. Common Market Law Rev 42(4):1107–1120

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnull A (2012) Judicial dialogue in the European Union. In: Dickson J, Eleftheriadis P (eds) Philosophical foundations of European Union law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 109–136

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bagaric M, Allan J (2006) The vacuous concept of dignity. J Hum Rights 5(2):257–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobek M (2013) Comparative reasoning in European Supreme Courts. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bouveresse A (2010) Le Pouvoir Discrétionnaire Dans l’ordre Juridique Communautaire. Bruylant, Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  • Brauch JA (2004) The margin of appreciation and the jurisprudence of the European Court of human rights: threat to the rule of law. Columbia J Eur Law 11(1):113–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Brauch JA (2009) The dangerous search for an elusive consensus: what the Supreme Court should learn from the European Court of human rights. Howard Law J 52(2):277–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Brems E (2001) Human rights: universality and diversity. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Brems E (2003) The margin of appreciation doctrine of the European Court of human rights: accommodating diversity within Europe. In: Forsythe DP, McMahon PC (eds) Human rights and diversity: area studies revisited. University of Nebraska Press, London, pp 81–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröhmer J (2004) Case C-36/02. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 15:753–757

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulterman MK, Kranenborg HR (2006) What if rules on free movement and human rights collide? About laser games and human dignity: the omega case. Eur Law Rev 31(1):93–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers D, Davies G, Monti A (2019) European Union public law, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cheyne I (2014) Deference and the use of the public policy exception in international courts and tribunals. In: Gruszczynski L, Werner W (eds) Deference in international courts and tribunals: standard of review and margin of appreciation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 38–57

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chu G (2006) Playing at killing freedom of movement. Leg Iss Econ Integr 33(1):85–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Claes M, De Visser M (2012) The Court of Justice as a federal constitutional court: a comparative perspective. In: Cloots E, De Baere G, Sottiaux S (eds) Federalism in the European Union. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 83–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Claes M, De Visser M, Popelier P, van de Heyning C (eds) (2013) Constitutional conversations in Europe, actors, topics and procedures. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa J-P (2013) Human dignity in the jurisprudence of the European Court of human rights. In: McCrudden C (ed) Understanding human dignity – proceedings of the British Academy, vol 192. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 393–402

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruz Villalón P (2012) Rights in Europe: the crowded house. In: Díez-Hochleitner Rodríguez J, Martínez Capdevila C, Blázquez Navarro I, Frutos Miranda J (eds) Últimas tendencias en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (2008–2011). La Ley, Madrid, pp 1135–1152

    Google Scholar 

  • Dani M (2017) National constitutional courts in the European constitutional democracy: a reply to Jan Komárek. Int J Const Law 15(3):801–814

    Google Scholar 

  • De Búrca G (2014) International law before the Courts: the European Union and the United States compared. New York University Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers No 494

    Google Scholar 

  • De Cecco F (2014) Fundamental freedoms, fundamental rights, and the scope of free movement law. German Law J 15(3):383–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vries S (2013) Balancing fundamental rights with economic freedoms according to the European Court of Justice. Utrecht Law Rev 9(1):169–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehousse R (2001) Naissance d’un Constitutionnalisme Transnational. In: Pouvoirs R (ed) No 96, Les Cours Européennes. Seuil, Luxembourg, pp 19–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Derlén M, Lindholm J (2017) Peek-A-Boo, It’s a case law system! Comparing the European Court of Justice and the United States Supreme Court from a network perspective. German Law J 18(3):648–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas-Scott S (2013) The Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of human rights after Lisbon. In: De Vries S et al (eds) The protection of fundamental rights in the EU after Lisbon. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 153–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupré C (2014) Human dignity. In: Peers S, Hervey T, Kenner J, Ward A (eds) The EU charter of fundamental rights: a commentary. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 3–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupré C (2016) The age of dignity: human rights and constitutionalism in Europe. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (1977) Taking rights seriously. Harvard University Press, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • Dzehtsiarou K (2011) European consensus and the evolutive interpretation of the European convention on human rights. German Law J 12(10):1730–1745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dzehtsiarou K (2015) European consensus and the legitimacy of the European Court of human rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eeckhout P (2011) The growing influence of European Union law. Fordham Int Law J 33(5):1490–1521

    Google Scholar 

  • Fetzer CT, Smith T (2004) The uncertain limits of the European Court of Justice’s authority: economic freedom versus human dignity. Columb J Eur Law 40(3):445–490

    Google Scholar 

  • Forowicz M (2011) State discretion as a paradox of EU evolution. EUI Working Papers MWP 2011/27

    Google Scholar 

  • Gargarella R (2014) We the people outside of the constitution: the dialogic model of constitutionalism and the system of checks and balances. Curr Leg Prob 67(1):1–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerards J (2017) The European Court of human rights. In: Jakab A et al (eds) Comparative constitutional reasoning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 237–276

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gerards J (2018) Margin of appreciation and incrementalism in the case law of the European Court of human rights. Hum Rights Law Rev 18(3):495–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greer S (2004) Balancing and the European Court of human rights: a contribution to the Habermas-Alexy debate. Camb Law J 63(2):412–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groussot X, Thor Petursson G (2012) Balancing as a judicial methodology of EU constitutional adjudication. In: De Vries S et al (eds) Balancing fundamental rights with the EU treaty freedoms: the European Court of Justice as ‘Tightrope’ Walker. Eleven International Publishing, The Hague, pp 43–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Heselhaus S, Hemsley R (2019) Human dignity and the European convention on human rights. In: Becchi P, Mathis K (eds) Handbook of human dignity in Europe. Springer, Cham, pp 969–992

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs F (2003) Judicial dialogue and the cross-fertilization of legal systems: the European Court of Justice. Texas Int Law J 38(3):547–556

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones J (2012) Human dignity in the EU charter of fundamental rights and before the European Court of Justice. Liverpool Law Rev 33(3):281–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight J (2016) The age of dignity: human rights and constitutionalism in Europe by Catherine Dupré. Yearb Eur Law 35(1):715–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kokott J, Sobotta C (2015) Protection of fundamental rights in the European Union: on the relationship between EU fundamental rights, the European Convention and national standards of protection. Yearb Eur Law 34(1):60–73

    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) EU becoming a human rights law organization: starting from nowhere with a ‘Gouvernment des Juges’. In: Korenica F (ed) The EU accession to the ECHR: between Luxembourg’s search for autonomy and Strasbourg’s credibility on human rights protection. Springer, Cham, pp 35–70

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Krommendijk J (2015) The use of ECtHR case law by the CJEU after Lisbon: the view of the Luxembourg insiders. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 22(6):812–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K (2003) Interlocking legal orders in the European Union and comparative law. Int Comp Law Q 52(4):873–906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K (2007) The rule of law and the coherence of the judicial system of the European Union. Common Market Law Rev 44(6):1625–1659

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K (2010) The constitutional allocation of powers and the general principles of EU law. Common Market Law Rev 47(6):1629–1669

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K (2011) Federalism and the rule of law: perspectives from the European Court of Justice. Fordham Int Law J 33(5):1338–1387

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K (2013) How the ECJ thinks: a study on judicial legitimacy. Fordham Int Law J 36(5):1202–1371

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K, Gutiérrez-Fons JA (2010) The constitutional allocation of powers and general principles of EU law. Common Market Law Rev 47(6):1629–1669

    Google Scholar 

  • Letsas G (2013) The ECHR as a living instrument: its meaning and legitimacy. In: Føllesdal A, Peters B, Ulfstein G (eds) Constituting Europe: the European Court of human rights in a national, European and global context. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 106–141

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mavronicola N (2014) Inhuman and degrading punishment, dignity, and the limits of retribution. Modern Law Rev 77(2):292–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrudden C (2008) Human dignity and judicial interpretation of human rights. Eur J Int Law 19(4):655–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Morano-Foadi S, Andreadakis A (2011) Reflections on the architecture of the EU after the Treaty of Lisbon: the European judicial approach to fundamental rights. Eur Law J 17(5):595–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morawa A (2002) The common European approach, international trends, and the evolution of human rights law: a comment on goodwin and I v. the United Kingdom. German Law J 3(8):E4, http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=172. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morijn J (2006) Balancing fundamental rights and common market freedoms in Union law: Schmidberger and Omega in the light of the European Constitution. Eur Law J 12(1):15–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nic Shuibhne N (2009) Margins of appreciation: national values, fundamental rights and EC free movement law. Eur Law Rev 34(2):230–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Nic Shuibhne N (2019) The social market economy and restriction of free movement rights: Plus c'est la même chose? J Common Market Stud 57(1):111–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olivetti M (2010) Article 1 – dignity. In: Mock WBT, Demuro G (eds) Human rights in Europe: commentary on the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. Carolina Academic Press, Durham, pp 3–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Polakiewicz J (2016) Europe’s multi-layered human rights protection system: challenges, opportunities and risks. Lecture at Waseda University Tokyo, https://www.coe.int/en/web/dlapil/speeches-of-the-director/-/asset_publisher/ja71RsfCQTP7/content/europe-s-multi-layered-human-rights-protection-system-challenges-opportunities-and-risks#_ftnref8. Accessed 23 Mar 2020

  • Reynolds S (2016) Explaining the constitutional drivers behind a perceived judicial preference for free movement over fundamental rights. Common Market Law Rev 53(3):643–677

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosas A (2007) The European Court of Justice in context: forms and patterns of judicial dialogue. Eur J Leg Stud 1(2):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze J (2013) Balancing EU integration and national interests in the case-law of the Court of Justice. In: Rosas A, Levits E, Bot Y (eds) The Court of Justice and the construction of Europe: analyses and perspectives on sixty years of case-law. Asser Press, De Haag, pp 257–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter A-M (2009) A new world order. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Smouts M-C (1995) Les Organisations Internationales. Armand Colin, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet A, Stranz K (2012) Rights adjudication and constitutional pluralism in Germany and Europe. J Eur Public Policy 19(1):92–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tremblay LB (2005) The legitimacy of judicial review: the limits of dialogue between courts and legislatures. Int J Const Law 3(4):617–648

    Google Scholar 

  • Tridimas T (2006) The general principles of EU law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushnet M (2009) Dialogic judicial review. Ark Law Rev 61(2):205–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Zyl SD, Weatherby P, Creighton S (2014) Whole life sentences and the tide of European human rights jurisprudence: what is to be done? Hum Rights Law Rev 14(1):59–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vesterdorf B (2006) A constitutional court for the EU? Int J Const Law 4(4):610–611

    Google Scholar 

  • Vigano F (2018) Melloni overruled? Considerations on the Taricco II judgment of the Court of Justice. New J Eur Crim Law 9(1):18–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villa I (2017) Subsidiarity, margin of appreciation and international adjudication within a cooperative conception of human rights. Int J Const Law 15(2):393–413

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogiatzis N (2019) The relationship between European consensus, the margin of appreciation and the legitimacy of the Strasbourg Court. Eur Public Law 25(3):445–480

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron J (2012) How law protects dignity. Camb Law J 71(1):200–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton E (2014) Preserving the European convention on human rights: why the UK’s threat to leave the convention could save it. Cap Univ Law Rev 42(4):977–1008

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2013) Economic rights to fundamental rights. In: Weatherill S, Bernitz U, De Vries S (eds) The protection of fundamental rights in the EU after Lisbon. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 11–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss W (2011) Human rights in the EU: rethinking the role of the European Convention on human rights after Lisbon. Eur Const Law Rev 7(1):64–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener A, Börzel T, Risse T (2019) European integration theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wollenschlager F (2018) Fundamental rights regimes in the European Union: contouring their spheres. In: Nakanishi Y (ed) Contemporary issues in human rights law. Springer, Singapore, pp 23–50

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Worsaae Rasmussen J (2007) European committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, memorandum on actual/real life sentences, 27 June 2007

    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). European Integration Through Rights: A Balancing Exercise and the Quest for Uniformity. In: Protection of Fundamental Rights in Europe. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42367-4_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42367-4_4

  • 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