Protection Of Fundamental Rights In Europe Research Articles

Austerity-Based Labour Market Reforms in Greece v. Fundamental Rights in the Aftermath of the European Debt Crisis: An Analysis of Supranational and National Bodies’ Jurisprudence

The recent debt crisis in Europe has resulted in a significant number of structural reforms implemented in EU Member States across various fields, including the labour market, either in the context of the bailout mechanisms or the EU Economic Governance framework. This development has provoked fundamental rights concerns and has consequently given rise to litigation strategies that put austerity reforms under the test of legality before supranational and national competent bodies and courts. However, the jurisprudence that has developed in that regard seems incoherent and shows real differences in approach. This study analyses the paths of judicial reasoning that supranational and Greek bodies have adopted in fundamental rights cases challenging austerity-based labour market reforms implemented in Greece during the European Debt Crisis. It concludes that different paths of reasoning have been adopted, which could even be regarded as conflicting at several instances. They are thus reflecting the well-known particularities and discrepancies of fundamental rights protection in Europe as well as the conflicting relationship of social rights with economic and fiscal considerations imposed by austerity in times of crisis and beyond. Austerity, Greece, labour market reforms, fundamental rights, European Debt Crisis, social rights, labour law, ECHR, European Social Charter, Court of Justice of the European Union

Loremza Violini and Antonia Baraggia (eds), The Fragmented Landscape of Fundamental Rights Protection in Europe – The Role of Judicial and Non‐Judicial Actors, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2018, 240 pp, hb £90.00.

The Modern Law ReviewVolume 83, Issue 3 p. 713-717 REVIEWS Loremza Violini and Antonia Baraggia (eds), The Fragmented Landscape of Fundamental Rights Protection in Europe – The Role of Judicial and Non-Judicial Actors, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2018, 240 pp, hb £90.00. Stefan Theil, Stefan Theil Bonavero Institute of Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford.Search for more papers by this author Stefan Theil, Stefan Theil Bonavero Institute of Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford.Search for more papers by this author First published: 03 December 2019 https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12500 Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume83, Issue3May 2020Pages 713-717 RelatedInformation

Book review: The Fragmented Landscape of Fundamental Rights Protection in Europe: The Role of Judicial and Non-Judicial Actors, edited by Lorenza Violini and Antonia Baraggia. (Cheltenham: Edwa

Book review: <i>The Fragmented Landscape of Fundamental Rights Protection in Europe: The Role of Judicial and Non-Judicial Actors</i>, edited by Lorenza Violini and Antonia Baraggia. (Cheltenham: Edwa

Austerity-Based Labour Law Reforms in Greece vs Fundamental Rights During the European Debt Crisis. An Evaluation Through the Lens of Supranational and National Bodies’ Jurisprudence

The recent debt crisis in Europe has resulted in a significant number of structural reforms implemented in EU Member States across various fields, including the labour market, either in the context of the bailout mechanisms or the EU Economic Governance framework. This development has provoked fundamental rights concerns and has consequently given rise to legal mobilization strategies that put austerity reforms under the test of legality before supranational and national competent bodies. However, the jurisprudence that has developed in that regard seems incoherent and shows real differences in approach. This study analyzes the paths of judicial reasoning that supranational and Greek bodies have adopted in fundamental rights cases challenging austerity-based labour market reforms implemented in Greece during the European Debt Crisis. It concludes that different paths of reasoning have been adopted, which could even be regarded as conflicting at several instances, reflecting in that way the well-known particularities and discrepancies of fundamental rights protection in Europe and the conflicting relationship of fundamental (social) rights with economic and fiscal considerations imposed by austerity in times of crisis and beyond.

The EU Fundamental Rights Landscape after Opinion 2/13

On 18 December 2014, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled in its Opinion 2/13 that the EU cannot accede to the ECHR under the terms of the negotiated Draft Accession Agreement. The Opinion and the stalemate it seems to have caused, raise important questions concerning the overall landscape of fundamental rights protection in Europe. Can the Court’s objections against the Draft Accession Agreement be overcome? Can the Agreement be re-negotiated to meet these objections? What are the legal issues such negotiations will have to solve? Is non-accession an option? What could the European system of human rights protection look like without accession? And what are the foreseeable consequences of accession or no accession for national courts? This joint working paper results from a workshop held at Maastricht University on 26 June 2015, which brought together academics and practitioners, members of negotiating teams and judges from the ECtHR, the CJEU and national courts, to discuss the consequences of Opinion 2/13 for broader issues of fundamental rights protection in Europe, and will examine future perspectives for accession of the EU to the ECHR.

Protecting Human Health and Security in Digital Europe: How to Deal with the “Privacy Paradox”?

This article is the result of an international research between law and ethics scholars from Universities in France and Switzerland, who have been closely collaborating with technical experts on the design and use of information and communication technologies in the fields of human health and security. The interdisciplinary approach is a unique feature and guarantees important new insights in the social, ethical and legal implications of these technologies for the individual and society as a whole. Its aim is to shed light on the tension between secrecy and transparency in the digital era. A special focus is put from the perspectives of psychology, medical ethics and European law on the contradiction between individuals' motivations for consented processing of personal data and their fears about unknown disclosure, transferal and sharing of personal data via information and communication technologies (named the "privacy paradox"). Potential benefits and harms for the individual and society resulting from the use of computers, mobile phones, the Internet and social media are being discussed. Furthermore, the authors point out the ethical and legal limitations inherent to the processing of personal data in a democratic society governed by the rule of law. Finally, they seek to demonstrate that the impact of information and communication technology use on the individuals' well-being, the latter being closely correlated with a high level of fundamental rights protection in Europe, is a promising feature of the socalled "e-democracy" as a new way to collectively attribute meaning to large-scale online actions, motivations and ideas.

Who's afraid of the Charter? The Court of Justice, national courts and the new framework of fundamental rights protection in Europe

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has forced the European Court of Justice and its national counterparts to face a series of difficult and principled questions: Who is the ultimate interpreter of fundamental rights in Europe? Which standard of protection is to be given priority? How does the Charter bind Member States when applying EU Law? This article argues that the first seminal decisions of the European Court of Justice on the matter, in particular the judgments in AkerbergFranssonand Melloni, have set the ground for a new framework of fundamental rights protection in the European Union. However, this framework does not depend on the sole authority of the Luxembourg court, but on a complex system of checks and balances that will demand complicity and commitment on the part of national supreme and constitutional courts.

The Framework for Fundamental Rights Protection in Europe under the Prospect of EU Accession to ECHR

Issues of human rights have always been crucial in the continent of Europe. The institutionalization of fundamental rights for European citizens remained a matter of much discussion among legal scholars for decades. With the amendment of the Lisbon Treaty, major changes were forwarded within the Union regarding that matter; one of those is the accession of the Union to ECHR. The purpose of this paper is to discuss major institutional aspects of this accession and propose solutions, after addressing certain difficulties on one hand and on the other, to draw the new picture of judicial protection of fundamental rights in Europe.

Fundamental Rights Protection in the EU Post Lisbon Treaty

The Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, constitutes a major step forward as regards fundamental rights protection in Europe. First and foremost, the fact that EU Charter of Fundamental Rights has become a legally binding element of the Union's legal order means that the Charter should now be viewed as the primary source of EU fundamental rights to be relied on, where relevant, by EU as well as national courts when interpreting and applying Union law. While the Charter ensures a fine crystallisation of rights resulting from national, European and international sources, its legal impact, however, is likely to be anything but revolutionary, and one may also regret that its interpretation and application is made extremely complex by a certain number of byzantine, if not superfluous, provisions. Secondly, the Lisbon Treaty provides the Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). As a matter of fact, new Article 6(2) TEU not only offers, at last, an explicit legal basis allowing the EU to accede to the ECHR but it actually imposes on the EU an obligation to seek accession. This obligation is not without raising a number of difficulties. This is particularly so because negotiation of the future agreement relating to the accession of the Union to the ECHR is conditioned to the respect of requirements that differ from those normally governing the accession of a state. For instance, the future agreement must make provision for preserving the specific characteristics of the Union and its law.