Spaventa, E. (2015) 'A very fearful Court? The protection of fundamental rights in the European Union after Opinion 2/13.', Maastricht journal of European and comparative law., 22 (1). pp. 35-56.
In December 2014 the Court of Justice of the European Union found, in Opinion 2/13, that the Draft Agreement for the EU accession to the ECHR was not compatible with the Treaties; unfortunately, some of the grounds relied upon by the Court will be diffi cult to remedy in a new agreement, even should the other parties to the ECHR be willing to negotiate a new agreement. Th is contribution recalls the reasons why accession was deemed necessary, and engages in a critical analysis of the Court’s ruling. In particular, it takes issue with the Court’s approach to justice and home aff airs, where the Court would like the accession agreement to somehow relieve the Member States of some of their ECHR obligation when giving eff ect to legislation based on ‘mutual trust’. Th e article then suggests that the three political institutions should simply declare that they consider themselves bound by the ECHR and that they will act without delay when and if the European Court of Human Rights should fi nd that a piece of Union law is incompatible with the Convention.
|Keywords:||Accession, ECHR, EU, Fundamental Rights, International Agreements, Opinion 2/13.|
|Full text:||(AM) Accepted Manuscript|
Download PDF (374Kb)
|Publisher Web site:||https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X1502200103|
|Publisher statement:||Spaventa, E. (2015) 'A very fearful Court? The protection of fundamental rights in the European Union after Opinion 2/13.', Maastricht journal of European and comparative law., 22 (1). pp. 35-56. Copyright © 2015 The Author(s). Reprinted by permission of SAGE Publications.|
|Record Created:||19 Mar 2015 11:35|
|Last Modified:||27 Mar 2018 14:46|
|Social bookmarking:||Export: EndNote, Zotero | BibTex|
|Look up in GoogleScholar | Find in a UK Library|