1,720,983 research outputs found

    Prior Exhaustion of Internal Remedies in Cases Involving the International Responsibility of the European Union

    No full text
    As recognized by the ILC in the 2011 Draft articles on international responsibility of international organizations, the rule of the prior exhaustion of internal remedies also applies to cases where the international responsibility of international organizations is invoked, be it in the field of diplomatic protection or of human rights law. This paper focuses on the application of the rule to the European Union. The author maintains that the legal remedies to be tried by individuals alleging injury as a consequence of an internationally wrongful act of the EU include both direct remedies before EU courts and remedies before domestic tribunals. He then scrutinizes whether each relevant remedy is capable of providing individuals with effective and accessible means of redress

    Sulla responsabilità extracontrattuale dell’Unione Europea per violazione della Carta dei diritti fondamentali: riflessioni in margine alla sentenza della Corte di giustizia nel caso Ledra Advertising .

    No full text
    Abstract. — The judgment delivered by the Court of Justice in Ledra Advertising provides many critical insights into the non-contractual liability of the EU for violation of obligations stemming from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Court set aside the orders of the General Court, which had declared in part inadmissible and in part unfoundedtheclaimsbroughtbyLedraAdvertisingandsomeCypriotcitizensseeking, first, annulment of certain provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) concluded between Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and, secondly, compensation for the damages allegedly suffered. Although the Court dismissedtheclaims—findingthattherehadbeennoviolationoftherighttoproperty — it declared them admissible and ruled that the EU institutions, even when acting outside the EU legal framework, are bound by the Charter. The author argues that the judgment opens the way to other applications alleging a violation of fundamental rights and seeking reparation for damages sustained as a result of austerity measures adopted by ESM Member States in the implementation of MoUs negotiated by the Commission together with the European Central Bank

    L’attuazione delle sentenze della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo che richiedono l’adozione di misure a portata generale

    No full text
    This paper deals with the implementation of the ECtHR’s judgments in domestic legal systems, with particular regard to those requiring the adoption of measures of a general character (i.e. the modification or abrogation of internal rules, changes in case-law, or administrative practices). In recent years, the international system that monitors compliance by contracting states with the ECHR has become stronger, thanks to the institutionalization of the “pilot judgment procedure” and the provision, in Protocol n. 14, relating to “infringement procedure” coming into force. This evolution aims at valorizing the “para-constitutional” function of the ECHR to guarantee the respect of legal rules. At the same time, it presents a challenge for contracting states and, not by chance, it is giving rise to considerable scholarly debate about the efficacy of the mechanisms established, in each domestic system, to abide by the Strasbourg judgments. The first part of this paper deals with the basis of the power of the ECHR to order the adoption of general measures of reparation, indispensable for the restoration of the status quo (before the violation of the Convention) and for the prevention of a repetition of the same violation to the detriment of other persons. In such a context, the relationship between article 41 and article 46 of the Convention is considered, as well as the coordination between the functions of the European Court and those of the Committee of Ministers. The author also examines the question of the eventual erga omnes efficacy of the ECtHR’s judgments, in order to establish whether they can produce rulings that are binding even for states not party to the proceedings. The second part of the paper focuses on ECtHR judgments carried out in Italy. The Italian Constitutional Court, in the “twin judgments” of 2007, and in the subsequent case law, has offered a significant contribution to the clarification of the effects produced by the ECtHR’s judgments on the Italian legal system. In the light of this jurisprudence, the author examines the role of the “common” and the constitutional judge in the execution of the decisions made in Strasbourg, by paying particular attention to judgments in which a structural deficiency is found. Finally, the role played by the legislator is examined, in assuring the compliance of the Italian legal order with the ECtHR’s decisions, with a particular focus on proposals aiming at rendering this more effective

    L’autonomia dell'ordinamento giuridico dell'Unione europea. Riflessioni all'indomani del parere della Corte di giustizia

    No full text
    Though widely used in international law literature, “autonomy” is not a term of art having a commonly agreed meaning. Particularly ambiguous is the concept of “autonomous legal order”, which is employed to qualify the internal legal orders of international organizations by scholars who have opposite views concerning the original or derivative nature of such orders. This article deals with the “autonomy” of EU law, a concept which was initially laid by the Court of Justice to affirm the primacy of Community law over domestic law and to guarantee its uniform application in all Member States. Subsequently, the same concept has been utilized by the Court of Justice to indicate autonomy from international law: in this second meaning, it protects the core identity values and principles of EU law and has evolved in parallel with the process of “constitutionalisation” of the EU. The preservation of the autonomy of the EU legal order, in both its « internal » and « external » dimension, has been intended as closely linked to the defense of the prerogatives of the Court of Justice. The paper tackles the evolution of the relevant case-law, from Costa v. Enel onwards, by paying special attention to the role played by human rights in the construction of the EU identity. It emphasizes that Opinion 2/13 has marked a reconfiguration of the concept of “autonomy”, by exacerbating the distrust of the Court of Justice in external judicial review and accentuating the “European Exceptionalism”, whereby the EU tends to require a special treatment compared to the one accorded to other international organizations

    The Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami II Case and the Protection of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights: a Missed Opportunity?

    No full text
    On 3 September 2015 the EU Court of Justice dismissed the appeal against the judgment of 25 April 2013, case T-526/10, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others II, in which the General Court had refused to declare the invalidity of the basic Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 on trade in seal products pursuant to Article 277 TFUE. Among the issues involved in the case were the legal value under EU law of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the protection of the appellant indigenous communities’ economic interests by the guarantee accorded to the right to property. Overall, the case reveals a lack of sensitivity of the EU judiciary towards advancing the rights of indigenous peoples and favouring the progressive development of international law in this field
    corecore