CEDU e Costituzione; CEDU e diritto UE

ECHR and It.Constitution; ECHR and EU Law

L’evoluzione della giurisprudenza costituzionale sui rapporti tra la CEDU e l’ordinamento italiano
Evolution of constitutional jurisprudence on the relationship between the ECHR and the Italian law

 

Sul valore della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea dopo l’entrata in vigore del Trattato di Lisbona:
The value of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon:

 

Sull’applicabilità diretta della CEDU a seguito della modifica dell’art.6 TUE disposta dal Trattato di Lisbona:
On the direct applicability of the ECHR following the amendment of article 6 TEU initiated by the Treaty of Lisbon:

 


RIZZO A. | Some thoughts on Judicial Cooperation and the Protection of Human Rights in the European Union: Theoretical Background and Open Questions**

Abstract

Summary. I. Judicial Cooperation in the Rome Treaty and Beyond – II. Principles of EU Judicial Cooperation – III.  The Protection of Human Rights and EU Judicial Cooperation – IV. International Law Sources on Human Rights Protection and EU Judicial Cooperation – Concluding remarks.

 

  1. Judicial Cooperation in the Rome Treaty and Beyond

Under Article 220[1] of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Communities (1957, hereinafter, EEC Treaty), the latter communities encouraged own member states improving mutual cooperation in civil law matters. This objective was later achieved at first in 1968 with the establishment of Brussels Convention assessing criteria for judicial competence and the mutual recognition of judgments on contractual obligations[2].  

It is wise recalling how, as from entry into force of Brussels Convention, a judge institutionally placed outside national legal systems, that is, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), is empowered by national judiciaries to understand same Convention’s provisions, in particular by means of the preliminary ruling mechanism under previous article 177  EEC Treaty (corresponding to current art. 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU [3]).

[1] According to that provision, the Member States would have initiated among themselves, “negotiations aimed at ensuring, for the benefit of their citizens […] the simplification of the formalities to which the mutual recognition and mutual enforcement of judicial decisions are subjected”, see Treaty establishing the European Economic Communities, accessible (just in French, German, Dutch and Italian) on-line here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/teec/sign.

[2] 1968 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (consolidated version), OJ C 27 of 26.1.1998 p. 1. On this source of EU Law, an abundant literature exists. It may suffice to mention here F. Pocar (ed.), La Convenzione di Bruxelles sulla giurisdizione e l’esecuzione delle sentenze, Milano, 1995 and T.C. Hartley, International Commercial Litigation. Text, Cases and Materials on Private International Law, Cambridge, 2009, part. pp. 19 ff.

PISANI M.- Mandato d’arresto europeo: se vi è rischio di trattamento inumano e degradante l’Autorità Giudiziaria d’esecuzione può decidere di porre fine alla procedura di esecuzione

Abstract

In its decision on the cases Aranyosi (C-404/15) and Căldăraru (C-659/15 PPU), The Court of Justice of the European Union (EUCJ) stated that, although Member States are obliged to respect the mutual recognition principle and cannot introduce non-execution mechanisms which are not provided in the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), they are obliged to respect the fundamental rights of the requested persons.
The Court of Luxemburg made it clear that fundamental rights, such as the prohibition of torture and ill treatments set out in Article 3 ECHR and in Article 4 of the EU Charter are absolute not derogable rights, thus Member States have the obligation to respect and protect them in every circumstance.
The decision supports the application of the proportionality principle in European criminal cooperation, that means that the European procedure on EAW should be activated when the scope is proportionate to the instrument and resources involved. The EUCJ considered some decisions of the ECHR relevant precedents in order to establish that there was a real risk that the requested persons, if surrendered to the requesting State, would be subjected to detention conditions that infringe their fundamental rights.
The decision requires national Judicial Authorities to defer the execution of an European Arrest Warrant until the requesting State provides sufficient information to ensure that the requested persons’ fundamental rights are effectively protected. If such information is insufficient or is not given within a reasonable period of time, it remains upon the Judicial Authority of the requested State to decide whether or not to complete the procedure. […]

La Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea si pronuncia ancora una volta in relazione alla procedura di esecuzione del mandato d’arresto europeo1, con una sentenza che mette nuovamente in risalto (ove ve ne fosse ancora il bisogno) la straordinaria rilevanza del dialogo tra le Corti internazionali e sovranazionali e quanto il diritto interno possa essere governato anche attraverso l’influenza di organismi diversi da quelli appartenenti strettamente al sistema dell’Unione europea.

Accessibility