Advertisement

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

Chapter
  • 103 Downloads

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.

References

Primary Sources

  1. Appl. No 10843/84 Cossey v the United Kingdom [1990] ECHR 21, (1991) 13 EHRR 622Google Scholar
  2. Appl. No 28957/95 Christine Goodwin v United Kingdom, [2002] ECHR 588Google Scholar
  3. Appl. No 6833/74 Marckx v Belgium (1979) 2 EHRR 330Google Scholar
  4. C-105/14 Criminal Proceedings against Ivo Taricco and Others ECLI:EU:C:2015:555Google Scholar
  5. C-112/00 Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v Republik Österreich ECLI:EU:C:2003:333Google Scholar
  6. C-13/94 P v S and Cornwall County Council [1996] ECLI:EU:C:1996:170Google Scholar
  7. C-168/91 Christos Konstantinidis v Stadt Altensteig - Standesamt and Landratsamt Calw - Ordnungsamt ECLI:EU:C:1993:109Google Scholar
  8. C-26/62 NV Algemene Transport-en Expeditie Onderneming Van Gend en Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration ECLI:EU:C:1963:1Google Scholar
  9. C-377/98 Kingdom of the Netherlands v European Parliament and Council of the European Union ECLI:EU:C:2001:523Google Scholar
  10. C-42/17 Criminal Proceedings against M.A.S. and M.B., ECLI:EU:C:2017:936Google Scholar
  11. Council of Europe (2000) Gazette Committee of Ministers, No. V/2000, Decision of 711th MeetingGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Council of the European Union (2002) Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant. OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1–20Google Scholar
  15. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/02Google Scholar
  16. Customs and Excise Commissioners v ApS Samex [1983]1 All ER 1042Google Scholar
  17. Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU Aranyosi and Căldăraru ECLI:EU:C:2016:198Google Scholar
  18. Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in C-168/91 Christos Konstantinidis v Stadt Altensteig - Standesamt and Landratsamt Calw – Ordnungsamt ECLI:EU:C:1992:504Google Scholar
  19. Opinion of Advocate General Lagrange C-14/61 Hoogovens v High Authority ECLI:EU:C:1962:19Google Scholar
  20. Pretty v United Kingdom [2002] 35 EHRR 1Google Scholar
  21. T-184/97 BP Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the European Communities, ECLI:EU:T:2000:217Google Scholar
  22. C-179/11 Cimade, GISTI v Ministre de l’Intérieur, de l’Outre-mer, des Collectivités territoriales et de l’Immigration ECLI:EU:C:2012:594Google Scholar
  23. C-208/09 Sayn-Wittgenstein v Landeshauptmann Von Wien ECLI:EU:C:2010:806Google Scholar
  24. C-244/06 Dynamic Medien Vertriebs GmbH v Avides Media AG ECLI:EU:C:2008:85Google Scholar
  25. C-283/11 Sky Österreich GmbH v Österreichischer Rundfunk EU:C:2013:28Google Scholar
  26. Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro in C-303/06 S. Coleman v Attridge Law and Steve Law ECLI:EU:C:2008:61Google Scholar
  27. C-314/12 UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH and Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft mbH ECLI:EU:C:2014:192Google Scholar
  28. C-399/11 Stefano Melloni v Ministerio Fiscal EU:C:2013:107Google Scholar
  29. C-418/11 Texdata Software GmbH EU:C:2013:588Google Scholar
  30. C-544/10 Deutsches Weintor eG v Land Rheinland-Pfalz ECLI:EU:C:2012:526Google Scholar
  31. Opinion of Advocate General Kokkot in C-550/07 P Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd v European Commission ECLI:EU:C:2010:229Google Scholar
  32. C-617/10 Åklagaren v Hans Åkerberg Fransson, EU:C:2013:105Google Scholar
  33. C-34/10 Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace eV ECLI:EU:C:2011:669Google Scholar
  34. C-36/02 Omega Spielhallen- undAutomatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn ECLI:EU:C:2004:614Google Scholar
  35. Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl in C-36/02 Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn ECLI:EU:C:2004:162Google Scholar
  36. C-70/10 Scarlett v SABAM, EU:C:2011:771Google Scholar
  37. Life Imprisonment 45 BVerfGE 187, Decision of 21 June 1977Google Scholar
  38. Appl. No 9532/81 Rees v United Kingdom, ECtHR 17 October 1986Google Scholar
  39. Appl. No 25680/94 I v United Kingdom, ECtHR 11 July 2002Google Scholar
  40. C-12/11 Denise McDonagh v Ryanair Ltd EU:C:2013:43Google Scholar
  41. Appl. Nos 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10 Vinter and Others v United Kingdom [2016] III ECHR 317Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

  1. Ackermann T (2005) Case C-36/02, Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn. Common Market Law Rev 42(4):1107–1120Google Scholar
  2. 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 109–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagaric M, Allan J (2006) The vacuous concept of dignity. J Hum Rights 5(2):257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bobek M (2013) Comparative reasoning in European Supreme Courts. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouveresse A (2010) Le Pouvoir Discrétionnaire Dans l’ordre Juridique Communautaire. Bruylant, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  6. 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):113–149Google Scholar
  7. 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):277–318Google Scholar
  8. Brems E (2001) Human rights: universality and diversity. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 81–110Google Scholar
  10. Bröhmer J (2004) Case C-36/02. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 15:753–757Google Scholar
  11. 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):93–101Google Scholar
  12. Chalmers D, Davies G, Monti A (2019) European Union public law, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 38–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chu G (2006) Playing at killing freedom of movement. Leg Iss Econ Integr 33(1):85–94Google Scholar
  15. 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 83–109Google Scholar
  16. Claes M, De Visser M, Popelier P, van de Heyning C (eds) (2013) Constitutional conversations in Europe, actors, topics and procedures. Intersentia, AntwerpGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 393–402Google Scholar
  18. 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 1135–1152Google Scholar
  19. Dani M (2017) National constitutional courts in the European constitutional democracy: a reply to Jan Komárek. Int J Const Law 15(3):801–814Google Scholar
  20. 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 494Google Scholar
  21. De Cecco F (2014) Fundamental freedoms, fundamental rights, and the scope of free movement law. German Law J 15(3):383–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. De Vries S (2013) Balancing fundamental rights with economic freedoms according to the European Court of Justice. Utrecht Law Rev 9(1):169–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dehousse R (2001) Naissance d’un Constitutionnalisme Transnational. In: Pouvoirs R (ed) No 96, Les Cours Européennes. Seuil, Luxembourg, pp 19–30Google Scholar
  24. 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):648–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 153–179Google Scholar
  26. 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 3–24Google Scholar
  27. Dupré C (2016) The age of dignity: human rights and constitutionalism in Europe. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Dworkin R (1977) Taking rights seriously. Harvard University Press, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  29. Dzehtsiarou K (2011) European consensus and the evolutive interpretation of the European convention on human rights. German Law J 12(10):1730–1745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dzehtsiarou K (2015) European consensus and the legitimacy of the European Court of human rights. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Eeckhout P (2011) The growing influence of European Union law. Fordham Int Law J 33(5):1490–1521Google Scholar
  32. 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):445–490Google Scholar
  33. Forowicz M (2011) State discretion as a paradox of EU evolution. EUI Working Papers MWP 2011/27Google Scholar
  34. 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):1–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gerards J (2017) The European Court of human rights. In: Jakab A et al (eds) Comparative constitutional reasoning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 237–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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):495–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Greer S (2004) Balancing and the European Court of human rights: a contribution to the Habermas-Alexy debate. Camb Law J 63(2):412–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 43–69Google Scholar
  39. 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 969–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jacobs F (2003) Judicial dialogue and the cross-fertilization of legal systems: the European Court of Justice. Texas Int Law J 38(3):547–556Google Scholar
  41. Jones J (2012) Human dignity in the EU charter of fundamental rights and before the European Court of Justice. Liverpool Law Rev 33(3):281–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Knight J (2016) The age of dignity: human rights and constitutionalism in Europe by Catherine Dupré. Yearb Eur Law 35(1):715–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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):60–73Google Scholar
  44. Komárek J (2014) National constitutional courts in the European constitutional democracy. Int J Const Law 12(3):525–544Google Scholar
  45. 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 35–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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):812–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lenaerts K (2003) Interlocking legal orders in the European Union and comparative law. Int Comp Law Q 52(4):873–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lenaerts K (2007) The rule of law and the coherence of the judicial system of the European Union. Common Market Law Rev 44(6):1625–1659Google Scholar
  49. Lenaerts K (2010) The constitutional allocation of powers and the general principles of EU law. Common Market Law Rev 47(6):1629–1669Google Scholar
  50. Lenaerts K (2011) Federalism and the rule of law: perspectives from the European Court of Justice. Fordham Int Law J 33(5):1338–1387Google Scholar
  51. Lenaerts K (2013) How the ECJ thinks: a study on judicial legitimacy. Fordham Int Law J 36(5):1202–1371Google Scholar
  52. Lenaerts K, Gutiérrez-Fons JA (2010) The constitutional allocation of powers and general principles of EU law. Common Market Law Rev 47(6):1629–1669Google Scholar
  53. 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 106–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mavronicola N (2014) Inhuman and degrading punishment, dignity, and the limits of retribution. Modern Law Rev 77(2):292–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McCrudden C (2008) Human dignity and judicial interpretation of human rights. Eur J Int Law 19(4):655–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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):64–87Google Scholar
  57. 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):595–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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 2020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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):15–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nic Shuibhne N (2009) Margins of appreciation: national values, fundamental rights and EC free movement law. Eur Law Rev 34(2):230–256Google Scholar
  61. 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):111–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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 3–11Google Scholar
  63. 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
  64. Reynolds S (2016) Explaining the constitutional drivers behind a perceived judicial preference for free movement over fundamental rights. Common Market Law Rev 53(3):643–677Google Scholar
  65. Rosas A (2007) The European Court of Justice in context: forms and patterns of judicial dialogue. Eur J Leg Stud 1(2):1–16Google Scholar
  66. 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 257–278Google Scholar
  67. Slaughter A-M (2009) A new world order. Princeton University Press, Princeton and OxfordGoogle Scholar
  68. Smouts M-C (1995) Les Organisations Internationales. Armand Colin, ParisGoogle Scholar
  69. Stone Sweet A, Stranz K (2012) Rights adjudication and constitutional pluralism in Germany and Europe. J Eur Public Policy 19(1):92–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tremblay LB (2005) The legitimacy of judicial review: the limits of dialogue between courts and legislatures. Int J Const Law 3(4):617–648Google Scholar
  71. Tridimas T (2006) The general principles of EU law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  72. Tushnet M (2009) Dialogic judicial review. Ark Law Rev 61(2):205–216Google Scholar
  73. 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):59–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vesterdorf B (2006) A constitutional court for the EU? Int J Const Law 4(4):610–611Google Scholar
  75. Vigano F (2018) Melloni overruled? Considerations on the Taricco II judgment of the Court of Justice. New J Eur Crim Law 9(1):18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Villa I (2017) Subsidiarity, margin of appreciation and international adjudication within a cooperative conception of human rights. Int J Const Law 15(2):393–413Google Scholar
  77. Vogiatzis N (2019) The relationship between European consensus, the margin of appreciation and the legitimacy of the Strasbourg Court. Eur Public Law 25(3):445–480Google Scholar
  78. Waldron J (2012) How law protects dignity. Camb Law J 71(1):200–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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):977–1008Google Scholar
  80. 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 11–36Google Scholar
  81. 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):64–95Google Scholar
  82. Wiener A, Börzel T, Risse T (2019) European integration theory. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  83. 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 23–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 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 2007Google 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