Abstract
This chapter analyses the different ways in which EU fundamental rights law circumscribes the free movement of judgments. It looks at the function of fundamental rights in the EU legal order, including the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU CFR) by the CJEU. It is shown that the EU has expressed a clear commitment to the protection of fundamental rights, and that the CJEU has repeatedly held the EU’s institutions accountable for this commitment by reviewing the conformity of EU legislation with fundamental rights (though it has arguably not always been sufficiently critical). This chapter discusses the CJEU’s judgment in the case N.S. and M.E. and others, in which the CJEU found that in exceptional cases fundamental rights considerations prevent the unmitigated functioning of mutual recognition. This chapter also shows that fundamental rights standards in secondary EU legislation are used as a way of ensuring the legislation’s effectiveness and as a tool to further implement mutual recognition. The CJEU’s judgment in Melloni shows that where fundamental rights standards have been harmonised in secondary legislation, Member States may not impose higher national fundamental rights standards to the detriment of the legislation’s effectiveness. Since EU civil justice regulations often contain harmonised fundamental rights standards, the Melloni judgment is highly relevant.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 326/391, 2012.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
Case 11-70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel ECLI:EU:C:1970:114.
- 5.
CJEU Case 43-75 Defrenne, ECLI:EU:C:1976:56.
- 6.
See, eg, Case 4/73 Nold v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1974:51; Case 44/79 Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz, ECLI:EU:C:1979:290; Case C-235/99 The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Kondova ECLI:EU:C:2001:489; Case C-25/02 Rinke v Arztekammer Hamburg ECLI:EU:C:2003:435; Cases C-465/00, 138 and 139/01 Rechsnungshof v Österreichischer Rundfunk and others, ECLI:EU:C:2003:294.
- 7.
CJEU Case 29-69 Stauder ECLI:EU:C:1969:57.
- 8.
CJEU Case 222-84 Johnston ECLI:EU:C:1986:206, para 19.
- 9.
CJEU Johnston para 18.
- 10.
CJEU Case 222/86 Heylens, ECLI:EU:C:1987:442 para 15.
- 11.
CJEU Case 4/73 Nold v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1974:51.
- 12.
CJEU Case 36-75 Rutili, ECLI:EU:C:1975:137.
- 13.
Compare the CJEU’s judgment in Case C-374/87 Orkem, ECLI:EU:C:1989:387, with the ECtHR’s ruling in Saunders v. United Kingdom, 19187/91 ECHR 1996-VI. See Callewaert (2009) p. 775.
- 14.
Compare the CJEU’s judgment in Joined Cases 46/87 and 227/88 Hoechst, ECLI:EU:C:1989:337, with that of the ECtHR in Niemietz v. Germany, appl. no. 13710/88; however, the CJEU has now revised its provision (see CJEU Case C-94/00 Roquette Frères, ECLI:EU:C:2002:603).
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Recital 5.
- 18.
- 19.
CJEU Case C-199/11 Otis, ECLI:EU:C:2012:684, para 47.
- 20.
Explanations relating to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, OJ C 303/17, 2007, p. 32.
- 21.
Case C-5/88 Hubert Wachauf v Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft, ECLI:EU:C:1989:321.
- 22.
C-260/89 Elliniki Radiophonia Tiléorassi AE and Panellinia Omospondia Syllogon Prossopikou v Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis and Sotirios Kouvelas and Nicolaos Avdellas and others (ERT v DEP) ECLI:EU:C:1991:254.
- 23.
C-309/96 Daniele Annibaldi v Sindaco del Comune di Guidonia and Presidente Regione Lazio, ECLI:EU:C:1997:631.
- 24.
Besselink (2001) p. 77.
- 25.
CJEU Case C-617/10 Åklagaren v. Hans Åkerberg Fransson, ECLI:EU:C:2013:280, para 21.
- 26.
CJEU Åkerberg Fransson.
- 27.
CJEU Case C-101/01 Criminal proceedings against Bodil Lindqvist, ECLI:EU:C:2003:596.
- 28.
- 29.
CJEU Åkerberg Fransson, para 47.
- 30.
Craig and De Bùrca (2015) pp. 475–476; CJEU Case 314/85 Foto-Frost, ECLI:EU:C:1987:452, para 15.
- 31.
CJEU Foto-Frost para 17.
- 32.
- 33.
Where there is room for interpretation, it is for the authorities and courts of the Member States not only to interpret their national law in a manner consistent with Directive 95/46 but also to make sure they do not rely on an interpretation of it which would be in conflict with the fundamental rights protected by the Community legal order; CJEU Lindqvist, para 87.
- 34.
The only exception to this rule is that the CJEU has allowed national courts to temporarily suspend the application of EU legislation during the preliminary ruling procedure, but only under certain conditions: CJEU Joined Cases C-134/88 and C-92/89 Zuckerfabrik, ECLI:EU:C:1991:65, para 33.
- 35.
CJEU Joined Cases C-119/13 and C-120/13 eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG v Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy and Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. mbH v Tetyana Bonchyk, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2144. See also 8.5.1.
- 36.
Article 20(1) EOP Regulation.
- 37.
CJEU eco cosmetics/Raiffeisenbank, para 48.
- 38.
View of Advocate General Bot, delivered on 9 April 2014, Joined Cases C 119/13 to C 121/13 eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG (C 119/13) v Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy, Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. mbH (C 120/13) v Tetyana Bonchyk and Rechtsanwaltskanzlei CMS Hasche Sigle, Partnerschaftsgesellschaft (C 121/13) v Xceed Holding Ltd, ECLI:EU:C:2014:248, para 45.
- 39.
CJEU Case C-172/91 Volker Sonntag v Hans Waidmann, ECLI:EU:C:1993:144.
- 40.
CJEU Joined Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09 Volker und Schecke, ECLI:EU:C:2010:662, paras 86–88.
- 41.
See also Case C-236/09 Association Belge de Consommateurs Test-Achats ECLI:EU:C:2011:100; De Visser (2014) p. 42. More recently, the CJEU also declared invalid a Commission decision (Case C-362/14 Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner, ECLI:EU:C:2015:650) as well as the Data Retention Directive (Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12 Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2014:238). See, critically, Chalmers and Trotter (2016) p. 9.
- 42.
Barents (2010) p. 715.
- 43.
See e.g. the reactions to the CJEU’s judgment in Advocaten voor de Wereld, which was about the European Arrest Warrant. The CJEU quite quickly dispensed with the argument that this was contrary to the principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties, in a reasoning which has been called “disappointing in its brevity” (Raulus (2012) p. 194) “very laconic” (Albi (2010) p. 42) and as making “little effort to engage with its national counterparts” (Sarmiento 2008).
- 44.
Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru ECLI:EU:C:2016: 198.
- 45.
See under 3.5.
- 46.
Peers (2011) p. 693.
- 47.
- 48.
Peers (2011).
- 49.
Mitsilegas (2006) p. 1280.
- 50.
- 51.
Stockholm Programme, para 1.2.1.
- 52.
Stockholm Programme, pp. 13–14; The Hague Programme para 3.2.
- 53.
Stockholm Programme para 2.4; in 2009 the European Council adopted a “Roadmap” on procedural rights in criminal proceedings (11457/09, DROIPEN 53, COPEN 120) which in turn formed the basis for Directives on translation (2010/64/EU) and the right to information (2012/13/EU).
- 54.
See Sect. 5.4.1.2.
- 55.
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 50/01, the “Dublin II Regulation”.
- 56.
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, OJ L 180/31 (the “Dublin III Regulation”).
- 57.
See Battjes et al. (2011) p. 9.
- 58.
For more information on the preceding ECtHR judgment in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, see Sect. 5.4.5.
- 59.
See for a comprehensive discussion of the M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece judgment Sect. 5.4.5.
- 60.
Den Heijer (2012) p. 1736.
- 61.
CJEU Joined Cases C–411/10 and C–493/10, N.S. and M.E. and others, ECLI:EU:C:2011:865.
- 62.
Along with the Dublin II Regulation, Directives 2003/9, 2004/83 and 2005/85 contained minimum standards intended to protect the rights of asylum seekers.
- 63.
CJEU Lindqvist; see Sect. 5.2.
- 64.
- 65.
Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru ECLI:EU:C:2016:198.
- 66.
See the discussion on CJEU Melloni under 6.4.
- 67.
Opinion 2/13 of the Court (Full Court) of 18 December 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454.
- 68.
Stockholm Programme (2010) p. 5.
- 69.
As discussed, the ECtHR has ruled that in cases where asylum seekers are transferred to third (non-ECHR) states, the ECHR imposes an obligation on Contracting States not to expel a person to a country where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that he would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3; see among others ECtHR T.I. v. United Kingdom [dec.] 43844/98 ECHR 2000-III.
- 70.
Article 1(2) EAW FD; Refusal grounds Article 3 and 4.
- 71.
Costello (2012) p. 89.
- 72.
Costello (2012) p. 89.
- 73.
Costello (2012) p. 90.
- 74.
See on this point also Corthaut (2012) p. 186.
- 75.
ECtHR Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], appl. no. 29217/12, ECHR 2014.
- 76.
ECtHR Tarakhel v. Switzerland, para 22.
- 77.
ECtHR Tarakhel v. Switzerland, para 114.
- 78.
See for an analysis Peers, S., Tarakhel v Switzerland: Another nail in the coffin of the Dublin system?, http://www.eulawanalysis.blogspot.com, 5 November 2014 (last accesed 4 May 2016).
- 79.
Gerards (2011) p. 103.
- 80.
Legg (2012) p. 210.
- 81.
CJEU N.S. and M.E.and others, para 100.
- 82.
See Craig and de Bùrca (2015) pp. 388–390, who explain that the CJEU has proved itself reluctant to ascribe too much importance to Member States’ conceptions of fundamental rights.
- 83.
Case 11-70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, ECLI:EU:C:1970:114, para 4.
- 84.
Heringa and Verhey (2001) p. 18.
- 85.
- 86.
This argument had already been examined by the Spanish Constitutional Court in a case from 2009, whose facts were virtually the same. In that case the Constitutional Court ruled the execution of the EAW to be unconstitutional, an outcome which was at the time criticized as being in conflict with EU law. Spanish Constitutional Court, judgment of 28 September 2009, STC 199/2009, para 3. Apart from its significance for EU law, the Melloni case is therefore also remarkable for the fact that this time around the Spanish Constitutional Court recognized the potential conflict and, for the first time in its existence, requested a preliminary ruling; see Torres Pérez (2012) pp. 108–109.
- 87.
Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, OJ L 190/001, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial, OJ L 81/24.
- 88.
CJEU Melloni para 26.
- 89.
See Besselink (2014).
- 90.
See e.g. CJEU CJEU Case C-420/07 Apostolides v. Orams, ECLI:EU:C:2009:271, para 55. With regard to Article 45(1)(b) which protects the defaulting debtor, see CJEU Volker Sonntag v Hans Waidmann.
- 91.
CJEU Case C-139/10 Prism Investments vs. Jaap-Anne van der Meer, ECLI:EU:C:2011:653.
- 92.
- 93.
CJEU Krombach v. Bamberski, discussed in Sect. 2.2.5.
- 94.
CJEU Volker Sonntag v Hans Waidmann.
- 95.
Franq (2012) p. 567; CJEU Case 145/86 Hoffman v Krieg, ECLI:EU:C:1988:61; CJEU Case C -78/95 Hendrikman and Feyen/ Magenta Druck & Verlag, ECLI:EU:C:1996:380.
- 96.
See 2.2.
- 97.
European Council, The Stockholm Programme - an open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens, OJ C/115/10, 2010, p. 13.
- 98.
Council Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2001, C 12/1.
- 99.
CJEU Joseba Andoni Aguirre Zarraga v. Simone Pelz, discussed under 3.5.
- 100.
Discussed in detail in Chap. 5.
- 101.
Article 26, EOP Regulation; Article 19, ESCP Regulation.
- 102.
See also the Proposal, Sect. 2.1 (“Overall objective”).
- 103.
Kramer (2008) p. 358.
- 104.
Kramer (2010) para 3.2.2.
- 105.
Case C-618/10 Banco Español de Crédito SA v Joaquín Calderón Camino, ECLI:EU:C:2012:349.
- 106.
Case C-473/00 Cofidis SA v Jean-Louis Fredout, ECLI:EU:C:2002:705.
- 107.
Though the European Commission, in its 2015 Report, suggests that in such cases Member State courts may choose to conduct the procedure under national law; it is questionable whether this solves the problem. Report from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the Application of Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council creating a European Order for Payment Procedure, COM(2015) 495 final, pp. 10–11.
- 108.
Some have doubted whether minimum requirements could provide an adequate compensation for the abolition of exequatur. Cuniberti and Rueda consider it an “alibi” for the removal of cross-border checks: Cuniberti and Rueda (2011) p. 297 et seq. More generally, it has been pointed out that it is the cross-border nature of the exequatur procedure which has a protective value and can therefore not be replaced with a check in the country of origin: De Cristofaro (2011) p. 452; Kramer (2011) p. 640; Cuniberti and Rueda (2011) p. 301; Muir Watt (2001) p. 551.
- 109.
- 110.
Article 3(1) of the Regulation clarifies when a claim can be seen as uncontested.
- 111.
See the explanation of Article 20 in the Proposal, COM/2002/0159 final.
- 112.
Explanations relating to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, OJ C 303/17, p. 25 (relating to Article 24 of the EU CFR).
- 113.
Hodgkin and Newell (2007) pp. 155–156.
- 114.
The UN Committee has even recognized the right of the child to be heard as one of four “general principles” of the Convention, which according to the General Comments of the Committee on that article “highlights the fact that this article establishes not only a right in itself, but should also be considered in the interpretation and implementation of all other rights.” The right of the child to be heard is therefore clearly of central importance to protecting the child’s autonomy. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Convention on the Rights of the Child. General Comment No. 12: the right of the child to be heard, 2009, p. 3.
- 115.
United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Convention on the Rights of the Child. General Comment No. 12: the right of the child to be heard, 2009.
- 116.
Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru ECLI:EU:C:2016:198; see the discussion under 6.3.3.
References
Albi A (2010) From the Banana Saga to a Sugar Saga and Beyond: Could the Post-Communist Constitutional Courts Teach the EU a Lesson in the Rule of Law? Common Market Law Rev 47:791–829
Barents R (2010) The Court of Justice after the Treaty of Lisbon. Common Market Law Rev 47:710–728
Battjes H et al (2011) The Principle of Mutual Trust in European Asylum, Migration, and Criminal Law. FORUM, Institute for Multicultural Affairs, Utrecht
Bernitz U, Nergelius J, Cardner C (eds) (2008) General Principles of EC law in a process of development. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn
Besselink L (2001) The Member States, the National Constitutions and the Scope of the Charter. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 8:68–80
Besselink L (2014) Parameters of Constitutional Conflict after Melloni. Eur Law Rev 39:531–552
Billing F (2012) The Parallel Between Non-Removal of Asylum Seekers and Non-Execution of a European Arrest Warrant on Human Rights Grounds: the CJEU Case of N.S. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department. Eur Crim Law Rev 2:77–91
Borowski M (2012) The Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Treaty on European Union. In: Trybus M, Rubini L (eds) (2012) The Treaty of Lisbon and the future of European law and policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Brouwer E (2013) Mutual Trust and the Dublin Regulation: Protection of Fundamental Rights in the EU and the Burden of Proof. Utrecht Law Rev 9:135–147
Callewaert J (2009) The European Convention on Human Rights and European Union Law: a Long Way to Harmony. Eur Human Rights Law Rev 2009:768–783
Chalmers D, Trotter S (2016) Fundamental Rights and Legal Wrongs: the Two Sides of the Same EU Coin. Eur Law J 22:9–39
Corthaut T (2012) EU Ordre Public. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn
Costello C (2012) Dublin case NS/ME: Finally, an end to blind trust across the EU? Asiel & Migrantenrecht 2012 (2):83–92
Craig P, De Búrca G (2015) EU Law. Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Cuniberti G, Rueda I (2011) Abolition of Exequatur: Addressing the Commission’s Concerns. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 75:286–316
De Boer N (2013) Addressing rights divergences under the Charter: Melloni. Case C-399/11, Stefano Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2009, nyr. Common Market Law Rev 50:1083–1104
De Cristofaro M (2011) The abolition of exequatur proceedings: speeding up the free movement of judgments while preserving the rights of the defense. Int J Proced Law 1:432–457
De Visser M (2013) 113. Hof van Justitie EU (Grote Kamer) 26 februari 2013, zaak C-399/11 (case note). Eur Hum Rights Cases 2013:1239–1249
De Visser M (2014) National Constitutional Courts, the Court of Justice and the Protection of Fundamental Rights in a post-Charter landscape. ERA Forum 15:39–51
De Vries S, Bernitz U, Weatherill S (eds) (2013) The protection of fundamental rights in the EU after Lisbon. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Den Heijer M (2012) Joined Cases C-411 & 493,10, N.S. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department and M.E. and Others v. Refugee Applications Commissioner, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2011, nyr. Common Market Law Rev 49:1735–1754
Di Federico G (ed) (2011) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: from Declaration to Binding Instrument. Springer, Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York
Douglas-Scott S (2006) A Tale of Two Courts: Luxembourg, Strasbourg and the growing European human rights acquis. Common Market Law Rev 43:629–664
Ehlers D (ed) (2007) European Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. De Gruyter, Berlin
European Council (2010) The Stockholm Programme—An Open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens. OJ C/115/10
Fierstra MA (2014) Akerberg Fransson: ruim toepassingsgebied van Handvest op handelingen van lidstaten. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Europees Recht 2014(6):197–205
Fontanelli F (2013) Hic Sunt Nationes: the Elusive Limits of the EU Charter and the European Constitutional Watchdog: Court of Justice of the European Union: Judgment of 26 February 2013, Case C-617/10 Aklagaren vs. Hans Akerberg Fransson. Eur Const Law Rev 9:315–334
Gerards J (2011) EVRM—algemene beginselen. Sdu Uitgevers, Den Haag
Hancox E (2013) The meaning of “implementing” EU law under Article 51(1) of the Charter: Akerberg Fransson. Common Market Law Rev 50:1411–1432
Heringa A, Verhey L (2001) The EU Charter: Text and Structure. Maastricht J Eur Comp. Law 8:11–32
Hodgkin R, Newell P (2007) Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child (prepared for the United Nations Children’s Fund). UNICEF
Iglesias Sanchez S (2012) The Court and the Charter: the Impact of the Entry into Force of the Lisbon Treaty on the ECJ’s approach to Fundamental Rights. Common Market Law Rev 49:1565–1611
Kessedjian C (2007) Public order in European Law. Erasmus Law Rev 1:25–36
Kramer XE (2008) The European Small Claims Procedure: Striking the Balance Between Simplicity and Fairness in European Litigation. Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht 16:355–373
Kramer XE (2010) Enhancing Enforcement in the European Union. The European Order for Payment Procedure and Its Implementation in the Member States, Particularly in Germany, The Netherlands and England. In: Van Rhee CH, Uzelac A (eds) Enforcement and Enforceability. Tradition and Reform. Intersentia, Antwerp/Oxford/Portland, pp 17–39
Kramer XE (2011) Abolition of exequatur under the Brussels I Regulation: effecting and protecting rights in the European judicial area. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 29(4):633–641
Krans HB (2005) Een Europese Executoriale Titel. Maandblad voor Vermogensrecht 2005(10):187–190
Lawson R (2005) The contribution of the Agency to the Implementation in the EU of International and European Human Rights Instruments. In: Alston P, De Schutter O (eds) Monitoring Fundamental Rights in the EU. The Contribution of the Fundamental Rights Agency. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, pp 229–251
Leczykiewicz D (2010) “Effective judicial protection” of human rights after Lisbon: should national courts be empowered to review EU secondary law? Eur Law Rev 48:326–348
Legg A (2012) The Margin of Appreciation in International Human Rights Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Mitsilegas V (2006) The constitutional implications of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the EU. Common Market Law Rev 43:1277–1311
Muir Watt H (2001) Evidence of an Emergent European Legal Culture: Public Policy Requirements of Procedural Fairness under the Brussels and Lugano Conventions. Texas Int Law J 36:539–554
O’Brien K, Koltermann B (2013) The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU in practice. ERA Forum 14:457–461
Ouwerkerk J (2011) Quid Pro Quo? A comparative perspective on the mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters. Intersentia, Antwerp
Peers S (2011) Mission Accomplished? EU Justice and Home Affairs after the Treaty of Lisbon. Common Market Law Rev 48:661–693
Peers S, Hervey T, Kenner J, Ward A (eds) (2014) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. A Commentary. Nomos/C.H. Beck/Hart Publishing, Baden Baden/Munich/Oxford
Raulus H (2012) The Charter of Fundamental Rights as a set of constitutional principles. In: Trybus M, Rubini L (eds) The Treaty of Lisbon and the future of European law and policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 181–199
Sarmiento D (2008) European Union: the European arrest warrant and the quest for constitutional coherence. Int J Const Law 6:171–183
Sarmiento R (2013) Who’s afraid of the Charter? The Court of Justice, national courts and the new framework of fundamental rights protection in Europe. Common Market Law Rev 50:1267–1304
Stein A (2004) Der Europäische Vollstreckungstitle für unbestrittene Forderungen tritt in Kraft—Aufruf zu einer nüchternen Betrachtung. Praxis der Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrenrechts (IPRax) 24:181–191
Swarcz M (2014) Application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Context of Sanctions Imposed by Member States for Infringements of EU law: comment on Fransson case. Eur Public Law 20:229–246
Thunberg Schunke M (2013) Whose Responsibility? A Study of Transnational Defence Rights and Mutual Recognition of Judicial Decisions within the EU. Intersentia, Antwerp
Torres Pérez A (2012) Spanish Constitutional Court, Constitutional Dialogue on the European Arrest Warrant: the Spanish Constitutional Court Knocking on Luxembourg’s Door. Spanish Constitutional Court, Order of 9 June 2011, ATC 86/2011. Eur Const Law Rev 8:105–127
Tridimas T (2006) The general principles of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Trybus M, Rubini L (eds) (2012) The Treaty of Lisbon and the Future of European Law and Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Veenbrink JM, De Waele HCFJA (2013) 58. Hof van Justitie EU 26 februari 2013, nr. C-617/10 (case note). Jurisprudentie Bestuursrecht 2013 4:305–318
Veldt-Foglia MI (2013) Stefano Melloni: grenzen aan de nationale grondwettelijke grondrechtenbescherming bij uitvoering van een EAB. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Europees Recht 10:399–345
Zilinsky M (2005) De Europese Executoriale Titel: Tijdige tenuitvoerlegging van vermogensrechtelijke beslissingen in de Europese Unie bezien vanuit verschillende internationale instrumenten. Kluwer, Deventer
Zilinsky M (2011) Afschaffing van het exequatur onder het voorstel tot herschikking van de EEX-Verordening: een hybride tussenvorm? Weekblad voor Privaatrecht, Notariaat en Registratie 2011 no. 6892
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hazelhorst, M. (2017). Free Movement of Civil Judgments and European Union Fundamental Rights Law. In: Free Movement of Civil Judgments in the European Union and the Right to a Fair Trial. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-162-3_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-162-3_6
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-161-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-162-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)
