Essay on Human Rights in the European Union

- thanks to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights others treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws were made.

Human rights are protected under Australian law in three key ways; statute law, the constitution and common law. It could be argued that if Australia adopted a bill of rights, human rights would be more clearly defined, consistent in all states and territories and more easily understood.

This essay advances the position that the quotation under discussion is, with all due respect to the Author, entirely incorrect. It is the counter-argument of this essay that the Courts of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have ‘abused’ their interpretive jurisdiction, and, in places, have even done violence to the very wording of the Treaty itself.

I knew of some controversy regarding the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), mostly in relation to judge’s role and the issues with judicial review. I think its poor reputation is interesting, when considering the nature of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (ECHR). The convention had British influences and drafters. We discussed how this reputation is in part based on the general misinformation and lack of knowledge. I recognise the HRA’s limitations and the issues it raises regarding parliamentary sovereignty. However, I learnt during our session that before the HRA the UK relied on ‘whatever was not prohibited was allowed’. This resulted in rights being abused and it was thereby necessary to incorporate them into domestic law to avoid

The concept of human rights has become ambiguous, with very little agreement regarding its meaning and application internationally. The concept of human rights could be deemed as what Gallie termed as “an essentially contested concept.” This argues that when it comes to certain concepts there is just simply no one clearly definable general use that is widely agreed on. There are a variety of elements and words that can be used to describe the concepts of human

This paper will assess the claim that supremacy of EU law is still an evolving and debatable concept. To do this, I have divided this paper into four sections. The first section will discuss the establishment of supremacy in EU law through ECJ case law. The second section will explore the vibrant debate surrounding constitutional pluralism that has arisen since the early 1990s. The third section will examine the debate and impact of the codification of primacy in the early 2000s. The fourth section will examine the extent to which the principle of sovereignty has been accepted in three EU Member States, namely, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Poland.

Enforcing the European Union legal system is diverse and done on multiple platforms; through not only actions taken against member states for breach of their obligations, but also, for example, through the use of direct effect1. Article 267 TFEU; an organism devised to practice private enforcement of EU law before national courts, has been critical to ensure uniform interpretation and application of EU law in member states. References for preliminary rulings occur when the national courts are presented with a question of EU law due to uncertainty of the provision. The national court will therefore ‘make a reference to the Court of Justice (COJ) to obtain a preliminary ruling on any point of EU law relevant to the proceedings’2. In

The CJEU case-law on horizontal direct effect of directives arguably lacks consistency in regards to the application of the general principle. The principle of direct effect was established in Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen. Although there is no set definition of direct effect, a broader definition was provided in Van Gend en Loos that it “can be expressed as the capacity of a provision of EU law to be invoked before a national court.” However, Van Dyun v. Home Office established that directives are capable of direct effect. Furthermore, Marshall v. Southampton established that there could only be vertical direct effect of directives. This stringent principle has arguable ignited the highly contested debate of whether or not horizontal direct effect is applicable to directives or if directives could only have vertical direct effect. However, this essay shall explore the lack of consistency in case-law regarding horizontal direct effect of directives. Firstly, this paper will delve into the case-law of the topic of horizontal direct effect of directives in efforts to try to highlight its consistency in its approach. Secondly, the paper will use case law and the opinion of academics (enter the name of the academics later) to highlight its inconsistencies using the legal mechanisms that have been introduced by the Courts to try to compensate for the lack of horizontal direct effect of directives. Namely, indirect effect, incidental horizontal

The Human Rights Act of 1998, also abbreviated to HRA is a national law passed in the United Kingdom and mostly came into force on 2 October 2000. Its purpose is to incorporate the rights within the European Convention on Human Rights into UK national law. This law allows the citizens of the United Kingdom to defend their rights in UK courts and states that public organisations such as the Government, Police and other public authorities must respect the people’s rights by treating them fairly and equally with dignity. Firstly, this essay will be discussing what the Human Rights Act (1998) is and its effects. Secondly, this essay will be pointing out the Articles and explaining the Act. Thirdly, this essay will be talking about the history and why this act came into place. Finally, this essay will argue the necessity of the Human Rights Act (1998).

The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background

The main purpose of the ECHR which being a product of post-war Europe was to promote

This essay will examine and evaluate the principle of supremacy of European Union (‘EU’) law since its ‘inception in the two fundamental authorities’ of Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie and Costa v ENEL analyzing how these cases established ‘an autonomous legal order which limits national sovereignty’ . Using Professor Weiler’s prism of ‘bi-dimensionalism’ this essay will examine supremacy through two viewpoints, how the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) has looked at the supremacy of EU law and how the national courts have viewed the supremacy. Whilst the EU may have one view, the second part of bi-dimensionalism is how the Member States have reviewed and interpreted the EU decisions reconciling them with

The judgement in Van Gend en Loos has undoubtedly had a huge impact upon the European Union and the way that it functions. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) claimed that the judgement had established a “new legal order” whether this is true is debatable but it is certainly a fundamental case in EU case law. The phrase “new legal order” was first used in Van Gend en Loos, so it was hard to know if that was what it was… Discuss what legal order means etc. The principle of direct effect (or immediate applicability) enables individuals to immediately invoke a European

ECJ held that the court second seised (Austrian court) must stay proceedings despite being designated in a jurisdiction agreement until the court first seised (Italian court) determined that the Gasser case was not within the jurisdiction of that court. Furthermore, it is not allowed to ignore Art 21 even when the court first seised lasted the proceedings much longer than needed. ECJ also accounted for the importance of stringent compliance lis pendens rule that the Regulation is established based on mutual trust in which Member States consent to trust other’s legal systems and judicial institutes .

It is important to set the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights in context by examining the development of rights within the European Union. The embryo organisation that commenced the EU (The Coal and Steel Community 1951) was introduced in the wake of World War II to rebuild Europe by economically tying previously warring nations together. The consensus amongst the "heavy weights" of the EU was, if member states were economically invested in each other to ensure financial stability within their own state, future conflicts would be avoided. The EU had taken the role of a purely economic organisation which explains why it was not focused on social issues such as human rights, leaving such matters to individual member states to determine. Then came the political advancement of the 1990s, as evidenced by Weiler; ‘[The Maastricht Treaty] appropriates the deepest symbols of statehood: European citizenship, defence and foreign policy’. Naturally, the issue of human rights became prominent within the EU, and after much debate and a Convention the Charter was passed and given legally binding status under the Lisbon Treaty of 2009. The Charter has proved to be a controversial issue within European politics, with doubts being voiced about the functionality of the European Union’s own “Bill of Rights”. To effectively assess the question at hand, this essay will evaluate the extent to which the Charter is a necessary and desirable development, before reaching an overall