Frontex and the respect of fundamental rights: from better protection to full responsibility. EPC Policy Brief, 3 June 2014

The European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) was created to improve border management cooperation between Member States. Seen from its inception as a security-oriented body, tools and rules have been gradually developed to enhance the human rights dimension and protection regarding Frontex activities. However, this step has not been accompanied with the explicit recognition of Frontex’s legal responsibility regarding violations of human rights occurring during joint operations it coordinates. Despite Frontex position rejecting such a responsibility, it is no longer clear whether this position can be maintained, as Yves Pascouau and Pascal Schumacher demonstrate in this Policy Brief.

Between pluralism and majoritarianism: the European Court of Human Rights on religious symbols and education

How is it possible to square the development of a consistent Europeanapproach to religious diversity with the recognition of the sometimes-conflictiveplurality of state-religion models? The Court´s support of the liberalprinciples of separation and neutrality have either been deplored by Christianconservatives as the result of European Christophobia, or celebratedby secularists as contributing to the formation of a Europe free of religion.In contrast, the present chapter argues for a differentiated approach toEuropean jurisprudence, outlining how the Court has been oscillating betweenan appealing liberal-pluralist perspective or framework, and a questionablemajoritarian one. Both perspectives are illustrated by focusing onrepresentative decisions in the area of religious education and symbols.

Redefining 'media' using a 'media-as-a-constitutional-component' concept:an evaluation of the need for the European Court of Human Rights to alter its understanding of 'media' within a new media landscape

This paper considers the impact of new media on freedom of expression and media freedom within the context of the European Convention on Human Rights and European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence. Through comparative analysis of US jurisprudence and scholarship, this paper deals with the following three issues. First, it explores the traditional purpose of the media, and how media freedom, as opposed to freedom of expression, has been subject to privileged protection, within an ECHR context at least. Secondly, it considers the emergence of new media, and how it can be differentiated from the traditional media. Finally, it analyses the philosophical justifications for freedom of expression, and how they enable a workable definition of the media based upon the concept of the media-as-a-constitutional-component.

The frustrated accesion of the European Union to the European Convention of Human Rights: a brief analysis of opinion 2/13 of the Court of Justice of European Union

Trabajo redactado en inglés sobre la última sentencia 2/13, del Tribunal de Justicia de Europa sobre la adhesión de la Unión Europea al Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos fundamentales. Análisis de la opinión 2/13 y sus objeciones.

Le processus d'adhésion à l'Union Européenne est-il en mesure de contribuer davantage que la Convention européenne à la protection des droits de l'homme en Turquie?

La Turquie va-t-elle adhérer à l'Union européenne? Sa candidature a toujours été sujette à critiques: droits de l'homme non respectés, restrictions des droits et libertés, notamment de la liberté d'expression, de religion et des droits politiques. Les dossiers sensibles comme le problème kurde et la question chypriote sont à l'origine des multiples plaintes contre l'État turc devant la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme. Dotée des caractéristiques essentielles d'un État moderne et laïque, le pays dispose de structures formellement démocratiques, mais sa démocratie se révèle fragile: ses politiques tant internes qu'externes sont décidées par un Conseil national de sécurité composé pour l'essentiel de militaires. En outre, l'armée qui a pris le pouvoir à maintes reprises a donné au régime une dimension autoritaire. Cela non seulement en vertu des principes fondateurs de la République (tradition centralisatrice de l'État turc), mais aussi de la priorité que l'institution militaire accorde à la sécurité, à l'unité et à l'identité nationales. En effet, les mesures d'exception (état d'urgence, cours de sûreté de l'État, loi anti-terroriste) ont contribué aux violations des droits de l'homme, d'où l'opposition entre le droit conventionnel et le droit national. De plus, le système judiciaire et administratif instauré par les militaires en 1982 n'est pas conçu dans l'intérêt des justiciables. Certes, l'accès à la modernité n'a pu se faire que sous la contrainte et le contrôle de l'armée, mais le régime en Turquie peut-il continuer à s'appuyer sur les«piliers de l'ordre» que sont l'armée, la police et la justice ? L’État semble cependant se réorganiser progressivement pour permettre au pouvoir politique d'assurer un contrôleur les forces de sécurité et pour donner une meilleure indépendance à la justice. Le processus mis en route et les critères imposés pour l'adhésion à l'UE devraient contribuer à mettre en œuvre les réformes institutionnelles capables d'harmoniser la démocratie à l'État de droit, à l'image des pays européens. En effet, les changements récents sont liés à l'agenda européen. Le gouvernement turc semble être déterminé et ambitieux dans sa vocation européenne. Les progrès réalisés pour intégrer l'UE lui sont un moteur de propulsion devant servir au pays et à sa population.

Il principio di proporzionalità nella disciplina del mandato d'arresto europeo

Il presente lavoro affronta un tema di particolare attualità nella applicazione del mandato d’arresto europeo. Pensate per il contrasto alle forme più gravi di criminalità, le procedure di consegna hanno trovato sempre più spesso applicazione per vicende criminose di scarsa offensività, determinando conseguenze gravi sui diritti fondamentali degli individui coinvolti e mettendo a rischio la reciproca fiducia tra gli Stati membri nello spazio di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia. Ciò ha imposto alle istituzioni europee di richiamare gli Stati membri al rispetto del principio di proporzionalità, quale principio generale del diritto europeo. Il presente studio analizza i presupposti e le modalità di applicazione di tale principio, alla luce del nuovo assetto impresso all’Unione dal Trattato di Lisbona e nella prospettiva dei diritti fondamentali. In particolare, esso si sofferma sul ruolo da attribuire, rispetto allo specifico tema, alla Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione ed all’art. 52 par. 1 in essa previsto, ove emerge la valenza costituzionale del principio di proporzionalità.

The three systems for the protection of fundamental human rights in the European Union and exceptional measures against terrorism: the case of extraordinary extraditions (the CIA flights) with special reference to the Spanish case

This document is aimed first of all, make a small introductory reference on the three levels of protection of fundamental rights in Europe with the idea of helping to clarify and understand mainly to non-European systems that we are not talking. For that, based on this, going on to assess the impact generated in these systems suggest that the complaints alleged involvement of European countries in secret CIA flights to combat international terrorism, as well as investigate the responses that have given each protection of these areas to try to clarify them. 

The Fundamental Rights Agency and Civil Society: Reminding the Gardeners of their Plants' Roots. EDAP 02/2012, 2012

The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), the EU body responsible for advising EU institutions on fundamental rights, is equipped with a Fundamental Rights Platform (FRP) to ensure an on-going and structured exchange of information and feedback between the FRA and Civil Society. When the FRA was founded in 2007, there was little pre-existing knowledge on how to design such a Platform; hence, the development of the relationship between the FRA and Civil Society over the first five years proved an interesting experiment. Although the Platform was never intended as a mechanism of democratic co-decision making, it is far more than a loose marketplace where Civil Society actors across the spectrum of fundamental rights themes gather. The Platform offers channels of consultation and exchange not only among the participants but also with the FRA. It allows for cross-pollination, ensuring informed grassroots input into FRA work and FRA expertise flow to Civil Society actors. This synergetic relationship builds upon both the self-organising forces of Civil Society and the terms of references of the FRP as defined by the FRA. The Platform allows to find a certain unity in the remarkable diversity of fundamental rights voices. To what degree, however, the Platform’s dynamics allow the transformation of sometimes ‘compartmentalised’ single human rights discussions into wider trans-sectoral and transnational debates within the Human Rights Community depends on the motivation and the interest(s) of the different Civil Society players.

The Triangular Relationship between Fundamental Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law in the EU: Towards an EU Copenhagen Mechanism. CEPS Paperbacks. November 2013

This study examines the protection of fundamental rights, democracy and rule of law in the European Union, and the challenges that arise in reflecting on ways to strengthen EU competences in these contested terrains. It provides a ‘state of play’ and critical account of EU-level policy and legal mechanisms assessing the relationship between rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights in the member states of the Union. The cross-cutting challenges affecting their uses, effective implementation and practical operability constitute a central point of the analysis. The study argues that the relationship between rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights is co-constitutive. Any future rule of law-related policy discussion in the EU should start from an understanding of the triangular relationship between these dimensions from the perspective of ‘democratic rule of law with fundamental rights’, i.e. the legally based rule of a democratic state that delivers fundamental rights. The three criteria are inherently and indivisibly interconnected, and interdependent on each of the others, and they cannot be separated without inflicting profound damage to the whole and changing its essential shape and configuration.