1,724,052 research outputs found
EU Return Directive: a cause for shame or an unexpectedly protective framework?
No full textA 2008 directive underpins the EU’s return policy. The Return Directive was initially criticised as the ‘directive of shame’, with particular reference to provisions allowing pre-return administrative detention of up to 18 months. Nevertheless, it gradually became apparent that the directive provided a rather protective framework for returnees. In her contribution to this Handbook, Madalina Moraru illustrates this to be the case specifically for the prioritisation of voluntary departure, the overall limitation of pre-removal detention, and the procedural guarantees the directive inscribes. This protective framework was further fleshed out by the case-law of national courts and the CJE
Judicial dialogue in action : making sense of the risk of absconding in the return procedure
No full textThis chapter analyses the contribution of courts and judicial dialogue to the implementation of the ‘risk of absconding’, which has proved to be one of the most problematic notions introduced by the Return Directive. The meaning of the ‘risk of absconding’ has been surrounded by confusion from the very start of the negotiations on the Return Directive. Initially, the European Commission’s proposal for a Return Directive did not provide a defi nition of this notion. Instead, a definition was introduced in Article 3(7) following a compromise reached between the opposing views of the Commission, Council and Parliament. The compromise defi nition used a very broad phrasing and did not provide for a harmonised list of circumstances that could lead to fi nding a risk of absconding. According to the Return Directive, Member States are required only to provide for objective criteria in national laws. Th e number and content of ‘objective criteria’ is not harmonised at EU level; instead Member States have retained the power to set these circumstances. Th is freedom has been wrongly interpreted as being unrestricted by EU legal guarantees, so much so that certain Member States listed so many and broad circumstances that a risk of absconding would almost always be presumed to exist, thus endangering the eff ective fulfi lment of the Directive’s objectives
Judicial interactions in action : a tool for a more powerful and influential EU charter of fundamental rights
No full textThe multilevel system of fundamental rights protection that applies in Europe may be interpreted as the result of national, regional and international legislators’ shared concerns about the protection of rights and principles essential in democratic societies. However, the normative hierarchy, the overlap and the cross-referencing between national and European bills of rights creates a complex fundamental rights web that is difficult for those willing to put these principles into practice to untangle
Judicial interactions upholding the right to be heard of asylum seekers, returnees and immigrants: the symbiotic protection of the EU Charter and general principles of EU law
No full textWhilst it is up to the European Union’s Member States to ‘provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law’ (Art. 19(1) Treaty on European Union (TEU)), the determination and enforcement of the European (Union) standard of ‘effective legal protection’, encompassing judicial independence, has become the challenge for the rule of law (in the light of Art. 2 TEU), the right to a fair trial (Art. 47 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR)), for the effectiveness of Union law2 and, as a result, for the entirety of the European Union legal system
Victor Moraru, profesor universitar, doctor habilitat – titular al Ordinului „Steaua Italiei” în grad de Cavaler
No full textVictor Moraru, professor, doctor habilitat - medal "The Star of Italy
Generalised push-back practices in Europe : the right to seek asylum is a fundamental right
No full textIn recent years, more and more asylum seekers trying to reach the European Union (EU) have found themselves subjected to practices that contradict the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the democratic principles within the Dublin III Regulation. The inalienable right of those individuals to seek asylum is violated every time that the Member States' national authorities subject them to irregular procedures and deny them their right to international protection without an individual assessment of their asylum claims. These practices are defined as push-backs. This brief outlines the ways in which asylum seekers are exposed to both 'external' and 'internal' push-backs by and between the Member States, while also underscoring the importance of safeguarding the physical safety and integrity of people seeking asylum. It offers case studies of EU countries where push-backs have become the new normal, and highlights the role of courts in remedying the wide-spreading push-backs practices. Within this context of generalized push-backs and executive backlash against European and domestic judgments finding violations of human rights, the withdrawal of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency from Hungary is an alarming signal for human rights protection. In the face of the rule of law and human rights challenges, was the Agency's withdrawal the most appropriate measure?. Finally, it asks whether the recent EU border procedure proposed in 2020 will have a positive or a negative impact on the right to seek asylum on the ground.En els darrers anys, cada cop més sol·licitants d'asil que intenten arribar a la Unió Europea (UE) s'han vist sotmesos a pràctiques que contradiuen la Carta dels Drets Fonamentals de la UE i els principis democràtics del Reglament Dublín III. El dret inalienable d'aquestes persones a sol·licitar asil es viola cada vegada que les autoritats nacionals dels Estats membres les sotmeten a procediments irregulars i se'ls nega el dret a la protecció internacional, sense una avaluació individual de les sol·licituds d'asil. Aquestes pràctiques es defineixen com a Devolucions forçoses. Aquest resum descriu les formes en què els sol·licitants d'asil estan exposats a devolucions tant "externes" com "internes" per part dels Estats membres i entre ells, alhora que subratlla la importància de salvaguardar la seguretat física i la integritat de les persones que sol·liciten asil. Ofereix estudis de casos de països de la UE on les devolucions s'han convertit en la nova normalitat i destaca el paper dels tribunals per posar remei a les pràctiques generalitzades de devolucions. Dins d'aquest context de devolucions forçoses i de reaccions violentes de l'executiu contra les sentències europees i nacionals que declaren violacions dels drets humans, la retirada de l'Agència Europea de la Guàrdia Costanera i de Fronteres d'Hongria és un senyal alarmant per a la protecció dels drets humans. Davant els desafiaments a l'Estat de dret i als drets humans, la retirada de l'Agència era la mesura més adequada?. Finalment, es planteja la pregunta de si el recent procediment fronterer de la UE, proposat el 2020, tindrà un impacte positiu o negatiu sobre el dret a sol·licitar asil sobre el terreny.En los últimos años, cada vez más solicitantes de asilo que intentan llegar a la Unión Europea (UE) se han visto sometidos a prácticas que contradicen la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la UE y los principios democráticos del Reglamento Dublín III. El derecho inalienable de esas personas a solicitar asilo se viola cada vez que las autoridades nacionales de los Estados miembros las someten a procedimientos irregulares y les niegan su derecho a protección internacional, sin una evaluación individual de sus solicitudes de asilo. Estas prácticas se definen como devoluciones forzosas. Este resumen describe las formas como los solicitantes de asilo están expuestos a devoluciones tanto "externas" como "internas" por parte de los Estados miembros y entre ellos, al mismo tiempo que subraya la importancia de salvaguardar la seguridad física y la integridad de las personas que solicitan asilo. Ofrece estudios de casos de países de la UE donde las devoluciones se han convertido en la nueva normalidad y destaca el papel de los tribunales para remediar las prácticas generalizadas de devoluciones. Dentro de este contexto de rechazos generalizados y reacciones violentas del ejecutivo contra las sentencias europeas y nacionales que declaran violaciones de los derechos humanos, la retirada de la Agencia Europea de la Guardia Costera y de Fronteras de Hungría es una señal alarmante para la protección de los derechos humanos. Ante los desafíos del Estado de derecho y los derechos humanos, ¿era la retirada de la Agencia la medida más adecuada?. Por último, se plantea la pregunta de si el reciente procedimiento fronterizo de la UE, propuesto en 2020, tendrá un impacto positivo o negativo sobre el derecho a solicitar asilo sobre el terreno
The European Court of Justice shaping the right to be heard for asylum seekers, returnees, and visa applicants : an exercise in judicial diplomacy
No full textSpecial Issue on 'Adjudicating migrant's rights : what are European Courts saying?'Published online: 11 May 2022This article analyses a decade of jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU, the Court) to show how the Court has shaped asylum seekers' and immigrants' right to be heard and to determine the added value of its jurisprudence to the protection of the right to be heard at EU and domestic levels. The article asks whether the CJEU has developed a specific conception of this right and whether this conception aligns with any of the existing scholarly characterisations of the CJEU's approach to migration: activism, passivism, idiosyncratic, or favouring the interpretation of governments or referring courts. The article finds that, taken together, the CJEU's judgments have shed light on the scope of application of the right to be heard and enhanced the overall protection of this right for asylum seekers, returnees, and visa applicants by crafting common standards of when and how to hear individuals and by delimitating tasks between administrative authorities and courts. The CJEU has thus filled significant gaps in EU secondary legislation on the protection of the right to be heard; established good conduct principles for administrative hearings; and empowered domestic courts to ensure the legal accountability of the executive and effective remedies for third-country nationals. Nevertheless, the domestic implementation of the right to be heard, as shaped by the CJEU, is still incoherent
WORLD HISTORY, LITERARY HISTORY: POSTMODERNISM AND AFTER
No full textWorld History, Literary History: Postmodernism and After. The basic question Christian Moraru raises in his contribution is about the direction in which literary history and criticism overall may be going after postmodernism. Moraru’s answer, or guess, is that literary-cultural scholarship, along with the humanities at large, would probably have to adjust to shifts in the world “out there.” As Moraru contends, our profession is already doing its best to catch up epistemologically with an increasingly strong planetary ontology, that is, with how the world most known to us—the finite planet—is and presents itself in the twenty-first century. Key here, he argues, is the lexicon and planetary phenomenology of “presentation” or presencing, rather, of an overwhelming coming into presence of that which is scattered all around us and we have been exploiting, overusing, polluting, discarding, or disregarding during the Anthropocene. In his essay, the critic attends to this resurgent presence and to what it means for literature and its historical cycles now that one of these—postmodernism—is basically complete. He does so obliquely, through a couple of marginalia to David Foster Wallace’s 1996 meganovel Infinite Jest.
Article history: Received 27 February 2022; Revised 28 August 2022; Accepted 31 August 2022; Available online 20 September 2022; Available print 30 September 2022
REZUMAT. Istoria lumii, istoria literaturii: Postmodernismul și dincolo de acesta. Principala întrebare pe care Christian Moraru o ridică în contribuția sa se referă la direcția criticii și istoriei literare după postmodernism. Răspunsul (sau intuiția) lui Moraru este aceea că literatura de specialitate din domeniu și disciplinele umanistice în general se vor vedea nevoite să se regleze la schimbările care au loc în lumea materială din afara lor. Așa cum afirmă autorul, profesia noastră face deja tot ce poate să țină pasul cu o ontologie planetară din ce în ce mai puternic marcată, sau, mai bine zis, cu felul în care lumea – planeta ca realitate înconjurătoare finită—ni se înfățișează în secolul al XXI-lea. Vitale, aici, spune el, sunt lexiconul și fenomenologia planetare ale „prezentării” sau prezentificării, mai bine zis, ale unei intensificări a prezenței copleșitoare a ceea ce este împrăștiat în jurul nostru și care a fost exploatat, suprauzat, poluat, aruncat și desconsiderat în timpul antropocenului. În articolul său, criticul abordează această prezență recurentă și semnificația sa pentru literatură și ciclurile istorice, acum că unul dintre acestea—postmodernismul—se află la sfârșit. Autorul analizează oblic aceste lucruri prin câteva glose pe marginea megaromanului Infinite Jest pe care David Foster Wallace l-a publicat în 1996.
Cuvinte-cheie: istoriografie literară, critică, postmodernism, post-postmodernism, prezență, epistemiologie, ontologie puternică, David Foster Wallace, Infinite Jest, Trumpism, geofobie, antropocen, après-gard
The Protection of EU citizens abroad: A legal assessment of the EU citizen’s right to consular and diplomatic protection
No full textThis article analyses the evolution of the EU citizenship right to consular and diplomatic protection and its implementation by the Member State
Murdoch after Postmodernism: Metafiction, Truth, and the Aesthetic of Presence in The Black Prince
No full textCet essai pose plusieurs questions interdépendantes, telles que : dans quelle mesure Murdoch est-elle « notre contemporaine » ? Plus précisément, l’œuvre de Murdoch présente-t-elle un intérêt nouveau lors de la transition hors du paradigme postmoderne ? Et en supposant, une fois de plus, que cette « transition » caractérise la littérature britannique comme les autres littératures anglophones et même non anglophones du xxie siècle, l’« héritage » de Murdoch est-il substantiel à l’heure actuelle ? Est-il prêt à dépasser le succès d’estime de longue date de l’auteur et à alimenter les pratiques littéraires actuelles au Royaume-Uni et peut-être même ailleurs ? Pour répondre à ces questions, Moraru s’intéresse d’une part au roman de Murdoch, The Black Prince, et d’autre part au débat actuel sur la disparition du postmodernisme et l’apparition d’un « nouveau contemporain » après la guerre froide.This essay poses several interrelated questions, such as: To what extent is Murdoch ‘our contemporary’? More specifically, does Murdoch’s work present renewed interest during the transition out of the postmodern paradigm? And assuming, again, that said ‘transition’ marks British as it does other twenty-first-century Anglophone and even non-Anglophone literatures, is Murdoch’s ‘legacy’ a strong one at the moment? Is it poised to reach beyond the author’s longstanding succès d’estime and actually fuel current literary practices in the United Kingdom and possibly elsewhere? To answer the questions, Moraru engages, on one side, with Murdoch’s novel The Black Prince and, on the other, with the ongoing debate around the ‘passing’ and ‘supplanting’ of postmodernism and the onset of a ‘new contemporary’ after the Cold War
- …
