Source: https://johan-callewaert.eu/mitteilungen/
Timestamp: 2019-11-19 02:02:21
Document Index: 755786470

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', 'CJEU ', '§ 1', 'CJEU ', '§ 1', 'CJEU ', '§ 31']

Announcements | Prof. Dr. iur. Johan Callewaert
im Hinblick auf die erste Sitzung des Kolloquiums zu den Leiturteilen des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte an diesem Donnerstag um 19.15 Uhr lege ich die vorläufige Liste der Themen aus der Rechtsprechung des EGMR bei, die zur Behandlung anstehen.
Wie bereits angekündigt, besteht für Sie auch die Möglichkeit – jedoch nicht die Pflicht – die Präsentation eines der aufgeführten Urteile zu übernehmen und somit einen Leistungsschein zu erwerben. Anhand beiliegender Liste können Sie sich schon überlegen, ob Sie eine solche Präsentation halten möchten und, wenn ja, zu welchem Thema.
Speyer-2019-2020-1Herunterladen
This entry was posted in Universität Speyer on 12/11/2019 by johan-callewaert.
On 8 October 2019, the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council mandated the European Commission to quickly resume negotiations with the Council of Europe with a view to allowing the EU to accede to the Convention, pursuant to Article 6(2) TEU. The following statement was thereby issued:
“The Council reaffirmed its commitment to the EU’saccession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The Council agreed to supplementary negotiating directives in order to allow for a swift resumption of the negotiations with the Council of Europe. Those amended negotiating directives are designed to take into account the Court of Justice’s opinion of 2014.
Negotiations on an agreement with the Council of Europe started in 2010. In 2013, a draft agreement was submitted by the Commission to the Court of Justice for an opinion on its compatibility with the EU treaties. At the end of 2014, the Court stated that the draft agreement was not compatible with the treaties on a number of points. In October 2015, the Council reaffirmed the EU’s commitment to accede to the ECHR and invited the Commission to work on an analysis of all legal issues raised by the Court. Last May, the Commission submitted to the Council a written contribution which comprehensively addresses all of the objections raised by the Court of Justice.
The Treaty on European Union provides for the accession of the EU to the ECHR. The objective is to reinforce the common values of the Union, improve the effectiveness of EU law and enhance the coherence of fundamental rights protection in Europe. “
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/jha/2019/10/07-08/
This entry was posted in Allgemein on 11/11/2019 by johan-callewaert.
This entry was posted in Recent Case Law on 20/10/2019 by johan-callewaert.
This entry was posted in Recent Case Law on 28/09/2019 by johan-callewaert.
This entry was posted in Recent Case Law on 13/09/2019 by johan-callewaert.
Judgment of the ECHR in Baltic Master Ltd. v. Lithuania
In Baltic Master Ltd. v. Lithuania (16.4.2019) the ECHR found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on the ground that the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania had not made sufficiently clear in its judgment on what specific legal grounds it had considered the application of EU law to be so obvious that no referral to the CJEU was required under Article 267 TFEU, despite the applicant company’s request to that effect. What is also noteworthy about this judgment is that it was given by a Committee of three judges acting under Article 28 § 1 b) of the Convention, the outcome of this case being considered to flow from well-established case-law within the meaning of that provision.
BALTIC-MASTER-LTD.-v.-LITHUANIADownload PDF
This entry was posted in Recent Case Law on 09/09/2019 by johan-callewaert.
Judgment of the ECHR in Mihalache v. Romania
In Mihalache v. Romania (8.7.2019) a Grand Chamber of the ECHR had to determine whether a public prosecutor’s order discontinuing criminal proceedings while imposing a fine on the applicant was a “final acquittal or conviction” triggering the application of the non bis in idem principle as laid down in Article 4 of Protocol No 7 to the Convention. In answering that question the ECHR relied on a series of criteria (determination as to the merits, availability of ordinary remedies, expiry of the time-limit within which those remedies are to be used) which in substance coincide with those relied on by the CJEU in similar cases such as Piotr Kossowski v. Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamburg (C-486/14). Only when a penalty has been imposed does EU law depart from Article 4 of Protocol No 7 in that Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement requires, as a condition for the application of the non bis in idem principle, that the penalty has been enforced, is in the process of being enforced or can no longer be enforced under the laws of the sentencing Member State (see Spasic, C-129/14).
MIHALACHE-v.-ROMANIA-1Download PDF
This entry was posted in Recent Case Law on 09/08/2019 by johan-callewaert.
Decision of the ECHR in Melvin West v. Hungary
In Melvin West v. Hungary (decision, 25.6.2019) the ECHR confirms that Article 6 of the Convention does not apply to the procedure for the execution of a European Arrest warrant but that, by virtue of Article 5 § 1 f) of the Convention, any detention with a view to transferring the person concerned to the issuing Member State has to be in compliance with the relevant domestic and European Union law, which it is primarily for the national authorities to interpret. Moreover, Article 5 prohibits any transfer of a person to a country where he or she would be exposed to a real risk of a flagrant breach of this provision. Finally, the ECHR reiterates that there is no basis under Article 8 of the Convention for a convicted person to avoid having to serve a prison sentence in a foreign country.
WEST-v.-HUNGARY-1Download PDF
This entry was posted in Recent Case Law on 30/07/2019 by johan-callewaert.
Judgment of the ECHR in Romeo Castaño v. Belgium
In Romeo Castaño v. Belgium (9.7.2019) the ECHR confirms the applicability of Article 3 of the Convention to the execution by EU Member States of a European Arrest Warrant but extends its scrutiny to Article 2 of the Convention in cases where a European Arrest Warrant has been issued with a view to enabling criminal proceedings for homicide in the issuing State to go ahead. In such cases, Article 2 imposes on the executing State an obligation to cooperate with the issuing State in facilitating those criminal proceedings, notably by transferring the person who is the subject of the European Arrest Warrant, without however ignoring the limits to such a transfer flowing from Article 3 of the Convention. Any refusal of a transfer on this ground should therefore be duly reasoned by reference to updated and individualised information.
AFFAIRE-ROMEO-CASTA_O-c.-BELGIQUEDownload PDF
This entry was posted in Recent Case Law on 10/07/2019 by johan-callewaert.
Judgment of the ECHR in Nodet v. France
In Nodet v. France (6.6.2019) the ECHR applies the non bis in idem principle according to its recent A. & B. v. Norway jurisprudence (24130/11 and 29758/11, 15.11.2016), which is in some contrast with the Menci jurisprudence of the CJEU (C-524/15, 20.3.2018), also mentioned in the Nodet judgment (at § 31).
AFFAIRE-NODET-c.-FRANCEDownload PDF
This entry was posted in Recent Case Law on 28/06/2019 by johan-callewaert.