Refine
Document Type
- Article (13)
- Working Paper (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (15)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (15)
Keywords
- EU rule of law framework (3)
- Rule of Law (3)
- Art. 7 EU (2)
- Crisis (2)
- European Union (2)
- Financial Crisis (2)
- Greece (2)
- Institution building (2)
- Art. 2 EU (1)
- Coronavirus (1)
Institute
The Polish government is stepping up its repression. The freedom of political speech is a main target. A national judge has not just the right but an outright duty to refer a case to the CJEU whenever the common value basis is in danger. Thus, a Polish judge faced with a case concerning the silencing of critics, must refer the matter to the CJEU and request an interpretation of Article 2 TEU in light of the rights at stake.
Fundamental rights protection, once a side show, has become important for the EU, as proved by the newfound treaty recognition of the EU fundamental rights charter (CFREU), and the upcoming accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). At the same time the fundamental rights situation in a considerable number of Member States is an increasing cause for concern. This has mostly been illustrated with reference to minorities and asylum seekers. However, recent reports of organizations like the Council of Europe, the OSCE and various NGOs have also highlighted serious problems with regard to media freedom, such as overt political influence, media concentration, disproportionate sanctions on journalists, misuse of counter-terrorism legislation against the press, deficient protection of journalistic sources and failure to investigate violence against reporters. ...
The application of the EU Commission’s Rule of Law Framework in the current Polish case is a step in the right direction. It seems a good instance to develop the Framework as an EU mechanism to protect European constitutional values in a European legal space which is rife with constitutional crises, but short of instruments to address them. Its pertinence appears even more clearly in comparison to the Council’s (in)activity under its own rule-of-law mechanism, hastily put forward after the Commission’s Framework. The activation of the Framework has shown its potential to mobilize European public opinion and orient public discourses to the current condition of EU values
Rechtswissenschaftliche Abhandlungen und Veranstaltungen zu internationalen Gerichten stehen häufig unter dem Titel „Internationale Streitbeilegung“. Es wäre aber viel besser, so die Leitthese dieses Beitrags, solche Texte und Veranstaltungen als „internationale Gerichtsbarkeit“ zu betiteln. Dies ist keineswegs ein bloßer Streit um Worte, da hinter diesen Alternativen unterschiedliche rechtswissenschaftliche Auffassungen stehen. Im Folgenden sei gezeigt, dass anders als die Be-zeichnung „Internationale Streitbeilegung“ suggeriert, nicht nur eine, sondern vier Funktionen die Rechtsprechung heutiger internationaler Gerichte kennzeichnen. Es handelt sich dabei um: Streitbeilegung im Einzelfall, Stabilisierung normativer Erwartungen, Rechtschöpfung sowie Kontrolle und Legitimation öffentlicher Gewalt. Die Ana-lyse dieser Funktionen zeigt, dass die Bezeichnung „Internationale Streitbeilegung“ überkommen ist. Entsprechend sollte die Bezeichnung des Fachs geändert und es als Teil des Fachs internationale Institutionen verortet werden.