Search

Despite becoming a legislative actor comparable to the Council after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament (EP) still lacks the power to effectively scrutinize the implementation of the European Union (EU) law and policies by the agencies of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). The case of Frontex has demonstrated the extent to which the successful protection of human rights is at stake when it comes to the activities at the external borders to halt irregular migration flows and other illegal cross-border activities. Abuses in this regard have been highlighted by several International Organizations and non-Governmental Organizations, forcing the EU Institutions to act accordingly. This paper analyzes the current state of affairs of the EP’s powers to scrutiny AFSJ agencies after the progressive enhancement of their mandates in the last decade, and suggests several recommendations to enhance the accountability of these agencies to fully respect the principles of the rule of Law and the values on which the EU is based., A pesar de convertirse en un legislador comparable al Consejo tras la entrada en vigor del Tratado de Lisboa, el Parlamento Europeo (PE) todavía carece de los poderes necesarios para controlar de manera efectiva la implementación del Derecho y políticas de la Unión Europea (UE) por parte de las agencias del Espacio de Libertad, Seguridad y Justicia (ELSJ). El caso de Frontex ha demostrado la medida en la que la protección efectiva de los derechos humanos está en juego cuando se abordan las actividades en las fronteras exteriores para detener los flujos de inmigración irregular y otras actividades transfronterizas ilícitas. Los abusos en este sentido han sido señalados por Organizaciones Internacionales y Organizaciones no gubernamentales, lo que ha provocado la intervención de las instituciones de la UE para ponerles coto. Este trabajo analiza el estado actual de la cuestión en relación con los poderes del PE para examinar las agencias del ELSJ tras el progresivo refuerzo de sus mandatos en la última década y sugiere algunas recomendaciones para reforzar la responsabilidad de dichas agencias con el fin de respetar plenamente los principios del Estado de Derecho y los valores sobre los que la UE se fundamenta.

International audience

The European Union is built on a strong commitment to promoting and protecting human rights, democracy and the rule of law in the world. Human rights are at the heart of the EU's relations with other countries and regions. This thesis examines in detail the fundamental implications of competition or cooperation between the courts of Strasbourg and Luxembourg in the light of the latest developments concerning the system for the protection of fundamental rights in the European Union, such as the accession of from the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. The protection of human rights remains a subject of infinite discussion. The general attitude towards a more exhaustive and binding catalog of human rights is essentially positive, although the constitutional and jurisdictional problems of such a binding document can not be ignored., L'Union européenne repose sur un ferme engagement à promouvoir et à protéger les droits de l'homme, la démocratie et l’État du droit dans le monde. Les droits de l'homme sont au cœur des relations de l'UE avec d'autres pays et régions. Cette thèse examine de manière approfondie les implications fondamentales résultant de la concurrence ou de la coopération entre les juridictions de Strasbourg et de Luxembourg à la lumière des derniers développements concernant le système de protection des droits fondamentaux au sein de l’Union européenne comme l’adhésion de l’Union européenne à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. La protection des droits de l'homme reste un sujet de discussion infinie. L’attitude générale à l’égard d’un catalogue plus exhaustif et contraignant des droits de l’homme est essentiellement positive, bien que les problèmes constitutionnels et juridictionnels d’un tel document contraignant ne puissent être ignorés.

International audience

International audience

International audience

International audience

Nombre de pages de l'ouvrage : 560 pages; International audience

International audience

La Cooperación Judicial civil en el Espacio de Libertad, seguridad y Justicia de la Unión Europea, haciendo una especial referencia al Derecho de Familia en la Unión Europea. Es el tema de mi TFG y en él se desarrolla la regulación existente, junto con un análisis de algunas de las sentencias dictadas por el TJUE

International audience

International audience

National audience

Ne bis in idem, understood as a procedural guarantee in the EU assumes different features in the AFSJ and in european competition law. Despite having a common origin (being, in both sectors the result of the case law of the same jurisdictional organ) its components are quite distintic in each area of the integration. In the AFSJ, the content of bis and idem are broader and addressed at a larger protection of individuals. Its axiological ground is based on the freedom of movements and human dignity, whereas in european competition law its closely linked to defence rights of legal persons and the concept of criminal punishment of anticompetitive sanctions as interpreted by the ECHR´s jurisprudence. In european competition law, ne bis in idem is limited by the systemic framework of competition law and the need to ensure parallel application of both european and national laws. Nonetheless, the absence of a compulsory mechanism to allocate jurisdiction in the EU (both in the AFSJ and in the field of anti-trust law) demands a common axiological framework. In this context, ne bis in idem must be understood as a defence right based on equity and proportionality. As far as its international dimension is concerned, ne bis in idem also lacks an erga omnes effect and it is not considered to be a rule of ius cogens. Consequently, the model which the ECJ has built regarding the application of the ne bis in idem in transnational and supranational contexts should be replicated by other courts through cross fertilization, in order to internationalize that procedural guarantee and broaden its scope of application. O ne bis in idem enquanto princípio-garantia da União Europeia assume caraterísticas distintas no ELSJ e no direito europeu da concorrência. Embora tendo em comum a origem pretoriana e sendo, em ambos os casos, fruto da jurisprudência do mesmo órgão jurisdicional, a densificação dos seus elementos constituintes foi efetuada, de forma diferenciada numa e noutra área da integração. No ELSJ, o conteúdo dos elementos bis e idem é amplo e orientado à proteção integral do indivíduo, baseando-se numa axiologia assente na liberdade de circulação e na dignidade da pessoa humana enquanto direitos fundamentais. Em contrapartida, no direito europeu da concorrência, a sua fundamentação axiológica resulta da necessidade de garantir os direitos de defesa das empresas numa ótica de processo justo, a partir do conceito de materialidade penal das sanções aplicadas, tal como interpretado pelo TEDH. Neste domínio, aquele princípio-garantia encontra-se limitado pelas caraterísticas sistémicas daquele segmento da integração e pela necessidade de assegurar a aplicação paralela do direito europeu e dos direitos nacionais da concorrência. A ausência de mecanismos vinculativos de escolha da jurisdição na UE e a possibilidade dessa ausência vir a conduzir a fenómenos de multiplicação da ação repressiva, contra as mesmas pessoas, pelos mesmos fatos, reforça a importância da dimensão garantística do ne bis in idem e afastam o princípio da unidade da atuação sancionatória como seu fundamento axiológico. Consequentemente, esse fundamento terá que ser comum e baseado num princípio de equidade e proporcionalidade, na vertente da proibição do excesso. Na dimensão internacional, o ne bis in idem não assume efeito erga omnes nem constitui uma regra de ius cogens, apesar de se mostrar consagrada em inúmeros instrumentos jurídicos de direito internacional referentes aos direitos fundamentais. Todavia, essa internacionalização é possível, através da técnica das referências cruzadas ou cross fertilization. O ne bis in in idem europeu, tal como modelado pelo TJUE, constitui um arquétipo decisório que outros tribunais, de diferentes jurisdições, poderão replicar, em distintos sistémicos, como forma de internacionalizar a sua aplicação, em nome de uma ética universal de proteção dos direitos de defesa.

En 2011 se creó una nueva agencia en el Espacio de Libertad, Seguridad y Justicia (ELSJ), EU-LISA, con el objetivo de gestionar los sistemas informáticos de gran magnitud. A partir de ese momento la agencia es la responsable de la infraestructura de comunicación de SIS II, VIS y Eurodac, sin que ello comporte la fusión de dichas bases de datos. Debido al poco tiempo que lleva funcionando es difícil valorar su efectividad, pero en el presente artículo se quiere ofrecer una visión global de la misma que facilite su conocimiento.

La dimension externe de l’ELSJ. Publication des ateliers de la session doctorale 2013 du GDR CNRS ELSJ / dir. scientif. R. Mehdi.; International audience

International audience

International audience

International audience

“Public policy is an unruly horse to ride”.1. In the past the Court of Justice has striven to “tame” the wild horse in the context of the free movement of persons by striking a balance between the individual’s right to free movement and the legitimate prerogative of Member States to combat threats to public policy.The result of this compromise is now found in Chapter VI of Directive 2004/38/EC, governing the expulsion of Union citizens, in particular in its Article 28.2. While consolidating the case law of the Court, Article 28 innovates by granting an exceptional level of protection for Union citizens resident for more than ten years in another Member Sate.According to Article28(3), “An expulsion decision may not be taken against [these] Union citizens, expect if the decision is based on imperative grounds of public security”.

International audience

International audience

International audience

Desde el comienzo del nuevo milenio, la cooperación consular local se ha convertido en una prioridad de la agenda europea. Los nuevos desafíos planteados en términos de seguridad y de orden público por fenómenos como el aumento de los flujos migratorios o el terrorismo internacional han puesto de manifiesto el papel estratégico desempeñado por la cooperación consular local como medio para mejorar la gestión integrada de las fronteras exteriores de la UE. Este artículo analiza el desarrollo y las modalidades institucionales de esta forma de cooperación llevada a cabo fuera de las fronteras de la UE y se interroga sobre su contribución a la construcción de un Espacio de Libertad, Seguridad y Justicia (ELSJ) dentro de la Unión.

Comment on: EUCJ Case C-348/09, P.I. v. Oberbürgermeisterin der Stadt Remscheid, judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 22 May 2012 “Public policy is an unruly horse to ride”. 1. In the past the Court of Justice has striven to “tame” the wild horse in the context of the free movement of persons by striking a balance between the individual’s right to free movement and the legitimate prerogative of Member States to combat threats to public policy. The result of this compromise is now found in Chapter VI of Directive 2004/38/EC, governing the expulsion of Union citizens, in particular in its Article 28. 2. While consolidating the case law of the Court, Article 28 innovates by granting an exceptional level of protection for Union citizens resident for more than ten years in another Member Sate.According to Article 28(3), “An expulsion decision may not be taken against [these] Union citizens, expect if the decision is based on imperative grounds of public security”.