• No results found

Interpretation of fundamental rights in a multilevel legal system : an analysis of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Interpretation of fundamental rights in a multilevel legal system : an analysis of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union"

Copied!
2
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Interpretation of fundamental rights in a multilevel legal system : an analysis of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union

Senden, H.C.K.

Citation

Senden, H. C. K. (2011, November 8). Interpretation of fundamental rights in a multilevel legal system : an analysis of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. School of Human Rights Research Series. Intersentia, Antwerp. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/18033

Version: Not Applicable (or Unknown)

License: Licence agreement concerning inclusion of doctoral thesis in the Institutional Repository of the University of Leiden Downloaded

from: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/18033

Note: To cite this publication please use the final published version (if applicable).

(2)

Fundamental rights provisions are known for their relatively vague and general formulation. As a result, judges dealing with these provisions are confronted with many and often controversial interpretative choices. These interpretative choices already present judges operating in a national context with difficulties, but that is even more so for European judges operating in a multilevel context.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) are often criticized for delivering judgments that contain debatable choices and do not offer sufficient insight into the reasons that have led the courts to make these choices. Especially in a multilevel context, where the cooperation of national authorities plays an important role as regards the effectiveness of the European courts, it is important that interpretation methods and principles are used in a transparent manner so that the reasons that justify a specific interpretative choice are clear.

This volume analyses the use of a selected number of interpretation methods and principles in the fundamental rights case law of the ECtHR and

the CJEU. The use of teleological, comparative, evolutive and autonomous interpretation by the ECtHR and the CJEU are elaborately discussed on the basis of both legal theoretical literature and case law. The legal theoretical analysis provides the basis for various relevant questions, hypotheses and (analytical) suggestions, that are further studied in the subsequent case law analysis. This leads to a thorough overview of the role of these interpretation methods and principles and the possibilities for improvement.

This volume has been written as a PhD Thesis by Hanneke Senden (Institute for Public Law, University of Leiden; presently lawyer at Van Doorne, the Netherlands) in the framework of the research project

‘Judicial reasoning in fundamental rights cases – national and European perspectives’, supervised by professor J.H. Gerards and funded by the Netherlands Organisation of Scientific Research (NWO).

Ha nn ek e S en de n Inte rp re tat ion o f F un da me nta l R igh ts i n a M ulti lev el Le ga l S ys tem

46

Hanneke Senden

Interpretation of Fundamental Rights in a Multilevel Legal System

An analysis of the European Court of Human Rights

and the Court of Justice of the European Union

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

The national qualification of the Member State in question is used as a starting point and the national qualifications of all Contracting States can play a role if the ECtHR uses

Interpretation of fundamental rights in a multilevel legal system : an analysis of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union..

H ILF (1986): “The Role of Comparative Law in the Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Communities”, in M ESTRAL (ed.), The Limitation of Human Rights in

In de rechtspraak van het EHRM wordt veelvuldig gebruik gemaakt van teleologi- sche interpretatie, maar hierbij wordt minder duidelijk aangegeven hoe het EHRM heeft vastgesteld wat

In general, from the promotion of human rights perspective, a first analysis justifies conclusion that sometimes PIL lawyers had best oppose European incentives, but at other

In case of pictures of “absolute Personen der Zeit- geschichte” (translated by the ECtHR as “figures of contemporary society ‘par excellence’”), publication would be unlawful

The European Court of Human Rights' conception of democracy rather thick, in- clusive - Increasing number of complaints of violations of Article 3 of the First Protocol- Requirements

10 If this perspective is taken, the distinction between defi nition and application does not really matter, nor is there any need to distinguish between classic argumenta-