ECJ Fundamental Rights Jurisprudence between Member States' Prerogatives and Citizens' Autonomy

This chapter provides an analysis of the European Court of Justice's Fundamental Rights Jurisprudence, focused on the potential of Member States to maintain any positive regulatory role in supporting citizens' autonomy on the one hand, and on the impact of the Court's case law on citizens' opportunities to actually enjoy human rights within societies (substantive autonomy). It first sketches the notion of autonomy which is proposed as base of fundamental rights protection and promotion within a social reality characterized by not democratically legitimated dominance based on wealth and economic power. It proceeds to contextualize ECJ case law on fundamental rights. This section starts with a quantitative appetizer, which will formalize some assumptions and test them on a total of 150 cases before the European judiciary. The paper then offers a more conceptual recount around fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination on the one hand and around fundamental rights of workers to actively shape employment and labor relations on the other hand. In conclusion some suggestions are made of how ECJ fundamental rights doctrine could develop more positively in order to moderate diverging interests of different parts of the citizenry in protecting fundamental rights.

Proportionality in Age Discrimination Cases - a Model Suitable for Socially Embedded Rights

This chapter discusses the use of proportionality in age discrimination cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union. It argues that the Court does not use this concept systematically - indeed it exposes some contradiction that make the case law seem arbitrary - and proposes a more fruitful use of the principle, which is in line with a modern conception of human rights. The chapter argues that the principle of proportionality stems from the time when human rights served the recently liberated burgeois elite in guarding their rights to property and liberty against the state. Today, states not only respect human rights (which is fully sufficient for this elite, who can rely on their inherited wealth to fend for themselves). They also protect and promote human rights, and these activities are a precondition for human rights to be practically relevant for the whole population. This also means that state activity, which is experienced as a limitation of rights to property and liberty by some, may constitute a measure to promote and protect human rights of others. In employment law - the only field where the EU ban on age discrimination is applied - this is a typical situation. If such a situation occurs, the principle of proportionality must be applied in a bifurcated way.It is not sufficient that the limitation of property rights is proportionate for the achievement of a public policy aim. If the aim of public policy is to enable the effective use of human rights, the limitation of the state action must be proportionate to the protection and promotion of those human rights. It is argued that the principle of proportionality is superior to less structures balancing acts (e.g. the Wednesbury principle), if it is applied both ways. Going over to the field of age discrimination, the chapter identifies a number of potentially colliding aims pursued in this field. Banning age discrimination may relate to genuine aims of anti-discrimination law if bias against older or very young workers is addressed. However, the EU ban of discrimination against all ages also serves to restructure employment law and policy to the age of flexibilisation, replacing the synchronisation principle that has been predominant for the welfare states of the 20th century. The former aim is related to human rights protection, while the latter aim is not (at least not always). This has consequences for applying the proportionality test. The chapter proposes different ways to argue the most difficult age discrimination cases, where anti-discrimination rationales and flexibilisation rationales clash

The European Court of Human Rights and Domestic Violence: Valiuliene v Lithuania

This article analyses the recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of domestic violence, with a particular focus on Valiuliene v Lithuania. It seems that to date the Court’s jurisprudence on this issue is somewhat inconsistent, and with Valiuliene v Lithuania the Court was given an opportunity to clarify its approach in this area. There are certainly a number of positive aspects to the Court’s judgment, however there are also difficulties with the approach of the Court in this case. Overall it is to be hoped that the judgment in Valiuliene v Lithuania will mark the beginning of a more coherent jurisprudence as regards domestic violence.

Global Production, CSR and Human Rights: The Courts of Public Opinion and the Social License to Operate

This paper takes at its starting point the responsibility placed upon corporations by the United Nations’ Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework as elaborated upon by the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to respect human rights. The overt pragmatism and knowledge of the complex business relationships that are embedded in global production led John Ruggie, the author of the Framework, to adopt a structure for the relationship between human rights and business that built on the existing practices of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). His intention was that these practices should be developed to embrace respect for human rights by exhorting corporations to move from “the era of declaratory CSR” to showing a demonstrable policy commitment to respect for human rights. The prime motivation for corporations to do this was, according to Ruggie, because the responsibility to respect was one that would be guarded and judged by the “courts of public opinion” as part of the social expectations imposed upon corporations or to put it another way as a condition of a corporation’s social license to operate.
This article sets out the background context to the Framework and examines the structures that it puts forward. In its third and final section the article looks at how the Framework requires a corporation’s social license to be assembled and how and by whom that social license will be judged. The success or failure of the Framework in persuading corporations to respect human rights is tied to whether “the courts of public opinion” can use their “naming and shaming power” effectively.

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights has begun to refer to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in order to support its reasoning for interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights in a particular way. But the EU Charter does not yet have any special status in that regard, being treated by the Court as on a par with numerous other documents of international law. The Court’s use of the Charter began in connection with arts 8 and 12 of the Convention (the right to a family life and the right to marry) but in subsequent years it has been extended to many other Articles of the Convention. It is in relation to art.6 (the right to a fair trial) that the Charter’s influence has been most noticeable so far, the Court having changed its position on two important aspects of Article 6 partly because of the wording of the EU Charter. But the influence on art.3 (in relation to the rights of asylum seekers), art.7 (in relation to retroactive penal laws), art.9 (in relation to the right to conscientious objection) and art.11 (in relation to rights of trades unions) has also been significant. The potential for the Charter to have greater influence on the Court’s jurisprudence in years to come remains considerable.