Fundamental Rights Flashcards
State the 2 Atricles that list the General Principles
Article 19 TEU
Article 263 TFEU
Article 19 TEU
The CJEU in interpreting and applying the treaties should observe the law
Article 263 TFEU
Ground for JR
THE CJEU can determine the validity of legislation if it infringes RoL of fundamnetal rights in its application
What must the CJEU uphold
Equal treatment
Legitimate Expectations
Name the case which triggered the evolution of fundamental rights in the EU
Internationalle Handelgeeleschaft
Internationalle Handelgeeleschaft
Facts:
Concerned EU law implementing grain export license
Needed to pay a deposit fo the license
Company didnt export as much grain as in license so lost deposit
Argued that thiis was disporoportionate as they ffuilled part of the lciense but lost all of the deposit
Argued that this went against german con princoples of economic freedom
Held;
EU law must be applied consistnetluy- national law cant dictate its application then it will be less effective and less uniform
Fundamnetal rights at national elvel cant dictate whether EU law is followed
CJEU has job to enforce fundamental rights and ensure the protection of them but that must be acheived within the EU structure and its goals
Appeal and german federal court
Why was this significant
Stated that Eu law didnt breach the con in thsi instance
Notwd that the EC lacked a codified catelogue of fundamental rights
In an instance where EU law conflicts with fundamental rights, Con will prevail
Significance: Need for fundamental rights to be codified
Did the courts shift from this perspective
In what case
Yes
Wunsche Handeelgeelschaft
Wunsche Handeelgeelschaft
If the Ec ensures protection of fundamental rights then the national german court will not interfere with EU law by the standard of the consitution
What case established general principle for respect for fudamental rights
Hauer
Hauer
Concerned EU ban on planting bines to grow grapes for wine due to oversaturation of market
Argued that this breached property rights
Held: Stated that it is important to have repsect for undamental rights
read treaties, national con and ECHR and found that a right to property existed and therefore it must also be reflected in EU law
However the right is not absolute and can be limited
In this instance the ban was termporary, justified and in the public intrest so it was upheld
How were fundamental rughts implemented in EU law
Creation of the Charter of Fundamwnral rights
Why was this charter so significant
Because it howed a shift away from that economic justification of the EU and rather focused on social rights and the citizens themselves
Rigths under the EU charter
Dignity
Freedom
Equality
Citizens rights,ie. freedom of movement
Solidarity
JUstice
What provision of treaties implements charter
Article 6 TEU
Article 6 TEU
- Charter is on par with the treaties- same legal importance
- EU should acceeed to ECHR
- Fundamental rights form general principles governing the EU
Name case that talked about fundamental rights
Digital rights ireland
Digital rights Ireland
Facts: Concerned a directive on the retention of communications data.
Telecom providers had to retain data for 2 years on all calls: not the content but who called and when, etc.
Argument: This directive infringed Articles 7 and 8 of the Consitution to private life and the protection of personal data.
Justification for Directive: To combat terrorism.
Held: The restriction on rights must be proportionate.
This directive applied to the whole public.
However, there were no procedural conditions like having to apply for a supervisory authority to oversee the data use and the state could use the data in an unrestricted way.
P56: This was an interference with the fundamental rights of practically the entire European population.
Conclusion: The directive was deemed invalid.
What are the 2 main issues with the charter
The scope of its applicaiton
Rights and principles
The scope of its applicaiton
Name Article
Article 51(1) of the charter
Article 51(1) of the charter
Provisions of the charter applicable only for the implementation of EU law
Satte cases on application scope
Anrangosi/caladaura
Irish Human RIghts comission v Miniter for childe,, freedp, , eq
Broader scope
Franson
Anrangosi/caladaura
Facts: Concerns European arrest warrants and detention conditions in Hungary and Romania.
Both applicants argued that they should not be returned.
Argued that the prison conditions were so bad that it amounted to inhumane and degraded treatment, going against the charter.
Held: Just because there were problems with prison conditions, it wasn’t enough that you could never return people to either of those countries.
If there were ‘substantial grounds’ to believe that they would incur ‘a real risk’ of being subject to inhumane or degrading conditions then the arrest warrant should not be executed.
A higher standard of proof: Detention conditions for that specific person.
Irish Human RIghts comission v Miniter for childe,, freedp, , eq
Facts: The state does not provide accommodation for all single male applicants for international protection.
Held: Cannot put a person in a position where they can’t even meet basic dignity.
The weekly allowance provided was not enough to prevent extreme poverty.
Article 1: Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected.
HC: Ireland was implementing EU legislation on reception conditions for International protection applicants to the charter was applicable.
Conclusion: Failure to provide accommodation breached Article 1 of the Charter.
Frannsonn
Facts: Concerned a fisher near the border of Sweden and Finland who did not declare himself.
He was facing a tax penalty and criminal prosecution for tax fraud.
Issue: Article 50 prevents double jeopardy.
An individual should not be tried twice for the same offence.
Was this issue within the scope of the charter?
Member state Argument: The relevant provision was adopted before Sweden joined the EU.
It was outside the remit of EU law and thus the charter because it was a national system governing VAT.
Held: Part of the revenue for VAT goes to the EU.
There was a sufficient connection to EU law because it concerned EU interests, thus the charter could apply.
Conclusion: No breach of Article 50 because tax penalties and criminal prosecution are different.
Controversy: This stretched beyond the idea of the charter applying only when member states are implementing EU law.
It connects things beyond the scope of EU law to being connected to the EU itself.
Rights and Principles
State probision
Article 52(5) of the charter
Article 52(5) of the charter
These provisions of the charter that take principles are not judicially cognisable if they have not been implemented by the legislation.
The court cannot give self-executing force to provisions of the charter that have not been enforced by the legislature.,ie. individuals cant bring cases like this
State cases on rights and principels
Egenberger
Glatzel
Egenberger
Facts: Concerned an individual who applied for a research position in a protestant social welfare charity in Germany.
A requirement for the position was to be either of protestant or Christian.
The applicant was not so she was denied entry position.
Argument: This was discrimination and went against Article 21 of the Charter and Directive 2000/78.
Article 21: Any discrimination based on any ground such as religion or belief shall be prohibited.
Held:This was a provision that was expressed with sufficient clarity that it was capable of enforcement by individuals.
P76: That prohibition is sufficient in itself to confer on individuals a right which they may rely on as such in disputes between them.
Glatzel
Facts: Concerned a lorry driver who lost sight in one eye and lost his license for the transfer of heavy goods.
Reason: Hypothetical risk is if you lose sight in the other eye, the consequences of an accident with a heavy goods vehicle are higher
Argument: This was in breach of Article 26 of the charter.
Article 26: The right of persons with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their occupational integration.
Issue: Could he rely on this?
Held: P78: That article cannot provide a subjective right on individuals that they can invoke.
Eu law and ECHR state case
Bosphorus v Ireland
Bosphorus v Ireland
Facts: A Turkish airline leased an aircraft that was stationed in Dublin Airport.
The EU decided to adopt economic sanctions on Yugoslavia because of the war.
As a Yugoslavian asset, the plane was impounded and the Turkish airline could not use it.
Argued that Ireland was in breach of the ECHR.
Initial ruling: The restriction was justified.
ECHR: EC law provides an equivalent protection of human rights to ECHR.
There is a presumption that national measures taken to comply with EC law are justified under the ECHR.
Charter and ECHR state article
Articl 52(3) of charter
Articl 52(3) of charter
Where the Court of Justice of the EU is looking at a right in the charter that is also in the ECHR, they will look at the issue in the same way and will look at the cases from the ECHR.
Does the Eu acceed to ECHR
TEU article 6(2) says yes
CJEU rejected draft proposal
Still ongoing Irish Jurist- like paso double- they confront each other while remaining united.’
