A Comparative Framing of Fundamental Rights Challenges to Social Crisis Measures in the Eurozone

Claire Kilpatrick 

European University Institute - Department of Law (LAW)

Bruno De Witte 

European University Institute - Department of Law (LAW)
November 1, 2014

SIEPS European Policy Analysis, November 2014 
Abstract:      

The Eurozone crisis and its management prompted dramatic changes to social rights and entitlements, specifically in the Member States which were most severely affected by the economic downturn. Fundamental rights, including fundamental social rights, from different sources can be a means to contest those crisis-imposed changes to social rights. The aim of this paper is to provide a comparative framing of fundamental rights challenges to social crisis measures in the Eurozone. The paper examines the decline in social rights, broadly defined, in a number of Eurozone Member States intensely affected by the crisis, and analyses the content, location and background of fundamental rights' challenges made to crisis-imposed changes to work and welfare rights in those States. The analysis prompts difficult yet central questions of the role of the EU as a human rights actor, the attitudes of courts in fundamental rights cases, as well as the significance of the Charter as a guarantor of fundamental social rights in the EU.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 12

Full text available: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2535267

The Rise and Fall of Human Rights: A Sceptical Account of Multilevel Governance

Jason Mazzone 

University of Illinois College of Law
December 15, 2014

Cambridge Journal of International & Comparative Law, vol. 3, issue 3 (2014)
University of Illinois College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 15-07 
Abstract:      

The pursuit of universal human rights in the modern era has a dark side. While universal conceptions of rights can keep abusive governmental practices in check, they can also limit the advancement of rights and result in their diminishment. Where a lower level of government has a strong pre-commitment to rights, obligations imposed at a higher level - such as through a national constitution or an international treaty - can act as a ceiling rather than a floor. Left to their own devices, some states or nations would adopt stronger protections for rights than they do when brought into a system of universal standards. Worse, universality provides cover to local reformers interested in cutting back on pre-existing local rights protections: as attention shifts from strong local traditions to less stringent universal standards, rights diminish. When rights weaken locally, a feedback effect, facilitated in part by judicial dialogue, can in turn reduce the scope of universal requirements. As core sets of rights continue to spread around the world, we should thus expect those rights to take on ever-diminishing form. When it comes to protecting rights, localism has benefits over globalism; diverse conceptions of rights may be preferable to common requirements; and the celebrated practice of cross-jurisdictional dialogue among courts (and other actors) may curtail rights rather than advance them.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 32

Keywords: human rights, constitutional rights, treaties, federalism, multilevel governance, localism, judicial dialogue, universalism, universal human rights

Full text available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2538678

The Global Citizens’ Initiative: Interview with Francesco Palermo

Full interview at: http://palermofrancesco.wordpress.com/2014/12/29/the-global-citizens-initiative-interview-with-francesco-palermo/

The EU's Sense of the Rule of Law and the Issue of its Oversight

Gianluigi Palombella 

SCUOLA SUPERIORE DI STUDI UNIVERSITARI, SANT'ANNA; University of Parma - Faculty of Law
December 14, 2014

Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. 2014/125 
Abstract:      

The chapter addresses the much debated role of the European Union in defending its Treaty art. 2 values even inside the Member states’ borders. The nature of the EU as a two-level systems is admittedly the first reason for a peculiar complexity of the issue. But some common places are discussed that might still foreclose an appropriate approach to the problem. To the forefront are brought questions, often overlooked in this context, concerning the meaning of the Rule of law that the EU upholds and practices, the possibility of a transitive notion of that normative ideal, its relation to democracy, both in the conceptual sense and in the EU contextual frame.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 27

Keywords: Rule of law, European Union, Constitutional failures, EU Law, Rule of Law, Values, Article 2 TEU, Enforcement, Democracy, Hungary, Romania, Constitutionalism values, Multilevel orders

Full text available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2538086

Law, Public Interest and Interpretation: Prolegomena of a Normative Framework on Administrative Discretion in the EU

Joana Mendes 

Amsterdam Centre of European Law and Governance
December 16, 2014

Abstract:      

It is conventionally assumed that administrative discretionary decisions are determined by political and expert-driven considerations and that law’s structuring and constraining capacity in that regard is and should be limited. Law defines a space within which discretionary choices are irrelevant to law because they have the same legal value. These tenets have shaped both the ways the Court of Justice of the European Union has approached judicial review of discretion and, more generally, the way law is perceived to structure administrative discretion in the Member States and also in the EU. However, the recent expansion of the regulatory powers of the European Union justifies revisiting these basic axioms. In particular, how far should discretion be shielded from the values that EU law conveys?

This paper proposes a normative elaboration of a core idea of public law to stress that law twins administrative discretion with a duty of regard to pre-determined public interests. On this basis, legal rules are able to provide a yardstick of critique of decisions that administrative officials adopt within spaces of discretion. An analysis of the Meroni judgment shows how this argument applies to EU law. But this claim only prepares the ground for a more complex inquiry: How does law operate – and how should it operate – within the spaces of administrative discretion, and how should courts review discretionary decisions? Administrative decision-makers construct the law in a specific institutional context in view of their specific tasks. Arguably, one should understand the specific processes through which they interpret the law to know how law may provide substantive criteria that guide discretionary choices. Such understanding would also be the basis to define and assess suitable degrees of judicial review of administrative discretion. One could then make a critical assessment – difficult to make at present – of the shifting boundaries between spaces of discretion and of judicial review that the dictum “manifest error of assessment, misuse of power or excess of power” conceals. This latter argument draws on the debate among US administrative law scholars on agency interpretation of statutes, but it is also mindful of conceptual distinctions that have prevailed in legal scholarship in Europe. The paper defines the prolegomena of a normative framework of a broader research project. It is work in progress.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 49

Full text available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2539068

La comparaison, technique essentielle du juge européen (The Comparison, an Essential Technique of European Judge)

Remus Titiriga 

INHA University 
December 14, 2014

"La comparaison, technique essentielle du juge européen", L’Harmattan Publishing House, Collection Logiques juridiques, Paris, France, 2011, 372 pages, ISBN: 978-2-296-56226-4 
Abstract:      

French Abstract: Ce livre, en français, est une première monographie en son genre, qui explore l'utilisation par la Cour de Justice l'Union Européenne (CJUE) de la comparaison juridique - autrement dit des solutions inspirés par les droits nationaux, pour résoudre certains points de droit de l'Union Européenne.

Il examine un outil puissant mais difficile à saisir.

La comparaison est un instrument puissant, car le juge de l'UE l'utilise intensivement pour résoudre les cas difficiles.

Il est un outil difficile à saisir, car la comparaison est un instrument multidimensionnel. Il est surtout une méthode d'interprétation aux côtés d'autres méthodes (grammaticales, systématiques, historiques ou téléologiques). Mais il est aussi est une formule pour decrire la détermination par le juge d'une source du droit européen, à savoir les principes communs des législations nationales. Par conséquent comparaison est une méthode d'interprétation mais aussi une "procedure" pour "batir" (développer) le droit européen pa le juge. Ainsi comparaison est une 'technique' de juge de l'UE.

Un chapitre préliminaire souligne certaines difficultés de la recherche. La première concerne la délimitation de l'utilisation technique de la comparaison par les juges par raport à la comparaison utilisés par des scientifiques-juristes. Une autre difficulté concerne l'utilisation cachée de comparaison par la Cour de l'UE.

Ensuite, la recherche se développe sur trois niveaux: une analyse formelle, une analyse fonctionnelle, et, enfin, une analyse de la justification profonde pour la comparaison comme technique.

L'analyse formelle identifie quatre types de comparaisons: standard, unificatrice, normative, diversité.

L'analyse fonctionnelle différencie les fonctions «administratives» (la construction de voies de recours judiciaires ou des mécanismes de contrôle des institutions européennes) et les fonctions «constitutionnelles» (par une imitation du fédéralisme et une edification de la protection des droits fondamentaux).

La recherche d'une justification profounde de la comparaison il la trouve dans la nature particulière de système de l'Union Européenne, qui manque les pouvoirs souverains (comme la "compétence de la competence") et qui est donc essentiellement différente d'une fédération classique.

English Abstract: This book, in French, is a first monograph of its kind, which explores the use by European Union (EU) Court of Justice of comparison-legal solutions inspired by national laws - to solve certain points of European Union law.

It examines a powerful but difficult to grasp tool.

The comparison is a powerful instrument, since EU judge use it extensively to solve hard cases.

It is difficult to grasp since comparison is a multidimensional instrument. On one side comparison is a method of interpretation alongside other methods (grammatical, systematical, historical or teleological). On the other side comparison is a formula for determination by EU judge of a source of EU law, ie the common principles of national laws. Therefore comparison is a method of interpretation but also a 'procedure' for 'construction' (development) of EU law by judge. Hence comparison is a technique of EU judge.

A preliminary chapter underlines certain difficulties of the research. The first one concerns the delimitation of technical use of comparison by judges from comparison used by legal scholars. Another difficulty relates to the hidden use of comparison by the EU Court.

Afterwards the research is developed on three stages: a formal analysis, a functional analysis, and, finally, an analysis of inner justification for comparison.

The formal analysis identifies 4 kinds of comparisons: standard, unifying, normative, diversity.
The functional analysis differentiates 'administrative' functions (the building up of judicial remedies or control mechanisms over European institutions) and 'constitutional' functions (the mimicking of federalism and the build up of a protection for human rights).

The search for inner justification of comparison find it in the special nature of European Union system, which lacks sovereign powers (as 'competence of competence') and therefore is essentially different from a classic federation.

Downloadable document is in French.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 19

Keywords: Comparative Law, European integration, European Law, Human Rights Law, International Law, Legal Theory, International Human Rights Law, Federalism, Comparative Constitutional Law, EuropeaEuropean Union Law, legal reasoning, interpretation, comparaison as method, legal methods, legal procedure, judge

Full text available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2538150

Barcelona de 25 a 27 de febrer de 2015 Diálogos Judiciales en el Sistema Interamericano de Garantía de los Derechos Humanos

El Departamento de Derecho de la Universitat Pompeu Fabra, la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación de México y la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos organizan y convocan el Congreso Diálogos Judiciales en el Sistema Interamericano de Garantía de los Derechos Humanos. Las conferencias tendrán lugar en la sede Ciutadella de la Universitat Pompeu Fabra de Barcelona, durante los días 25, 26 y 27 de febrero de 2015.

En el Congreso participarán jueces de los Tribunales Constitucionales y Supremos de los Estados del continente americano, de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos y del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, miembros de Organizaciones No Gubernamentales, investigadores, estudiantes y usuarios del sistema interamericano de los derechos humanos. Será un escenario de encuentro para discutir sobre las transformaciones y retos de la garantía judicial de los derechos humanos en el continente americano.

En el Congreso se debatirá la forma cómo se ha entablado el diálogo judicial entre los niveles nacional e interamericano, concretamente sobre los mecanismos de interpretación conforme y el control de convencionalidad, los problemas que han surgido y, finalmente, se propondrán mejoras para fortalecerlo y mejorarlo.

Los principales temas del Congreso serán el diálogo entre tribunales nacionales y los tribunales internacionales, el futuro de la protección multinivel de los derechos en el continente americano y el papel de los jueces nacionales en contextos de pluralismo constitucional.

El evento se desarrollará en tres días, celebrándose sesiones plenarias y sesiones de grupo. En las sesiones plenarias se reunirán todos los asistentes: se expondrán ponencias y se dejará espacio para el debate entre todos. Los asistentes, en cambio, decidirán libremente su participación en las sesiones de grupo. Se trata de reuniones de dimensiones más reducidas que permiten un debate más intenso y próximo sobre las cuestiones que se planteen, a manera de lanzamiento del debate, por parte de los ponentes. Las sesiones se organizarán de tal manera que se garantiza la visión de un juez de la CoIDH y de un juez nacional. También, se contará con la presencia de académicos o investigadores de prestigio en el campo de la protección de los derechos humanos en el continente americano y en Europa.

Los grupos de trabajo temáticos serán sobre los siguientes temas: interculturalidad, migrantes, libertad de expresión, personas en situación de discapacidad, independencia judicial, derechos políticos, derechos sexuales y reproductivos y derechos económicos, sociales y culturales

http://eventia.upf.edu/dialogos_sidh/