Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Can Bosphorus be maintained?

  • Article
  • Published:
ERA Forum Aims and scope

Abstract

This paper considers the implications of Opinion 2/13 by the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interrelationship between European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights. It addresses the question of the extent to which the Bosphorus decision of the European Court of Human Rights can be maintained. The paper overviews the background to Opinion 2/13 before going on to briefly analyse Opinion 2/13. The paper addresses the effects the Opinion will have on the relationship between the ECHR and the CJEU, the effects it has had on international treaties, and in particular on the Brussels II bis Regulation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Opinion 2/13 of the Court of 18 December 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454.

  2. The EEA States are the 28 EU States including Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway.

  3. Opinion 1/91 of the Court of 14 December 1991 [1991] ECR I-06079, ECLI:EU:C:1991:490.

  4. Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”), Art 218.

  5. It should be noted that the European Free Trade Association (“EFTA”) already has its own Court, which fulfils the judicial function within the EFTA system, interpreting the Agreement on the European Economic Area with regard to the EFTA States party to the Agreement. At present the EFTA States are Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. Switzerland, however, is not a Member of the EEA and so does not participate in the activities of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, a body roughly equivalent to the Commission, or the EFTA Court.

  6. Opinion 1/09 of the Court of 8 March 2011 [2011] ECR I-01137, ECLI:EU:C:2011:123, paragraph 85.

  7. Case C-11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel [1970] ECR 1125, paragraph 3.

  8. Case C-4/73 J. Nold, Kohlen- und Baustoffgroßhandlung v Ruhrkohle Aktiengesellschaft [1974] ECR 00491, paragraph 13.

  9. Case C-299/95 Friedrich Kremzow v Republik Österreich [1997] ECR I-02629, paragraphs 14–15.

  10. Opinion 2/94 of the Court of 28 March 1996 [1996] ECR I-01759, ECLI:EU:C:1996:140.

  11. Ibid paragraph 35.

  12. See below.

  13. Protocol (No. 8) relating to Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the accession of the Union to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 273–273.

  14. Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending the control system of the Convention, CETS No. 194.

  15. There was no comparable arrangement for the participation by civil society in the EU side of the negotiations.

  16. Opinion 2/13, paragraph 258.

  17. Case C-176 Association de médiation sociale v Union locale des syndicats CGT, Hichem Laboubi, Union départementale CGT des Bouches-du-Rhône, Confédération générale du travail (CGT), ECLI:EU:C:2014:2; Case 583/11 Inuit Tapariit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, ECLI:EU:C:2013:21.

  18. O’Neill [2].

  19. Council of the European Union, ‘Request for the participation of a delegate of the Court of Justice of the European Union as an observer, at the next consultations with the Member States, pertaining to the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)’ [2010] 13714/10 JAI 747 INST 333, p. 1.

  20. CJEU: Discussion document of the Court of Justice of the European Union on certain aspects of the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (5 May 2010), available at: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2010-05/convention_en.pdf, accessed 1 December 2015.

  21. Joint communication from the Presidents of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, further to the meeting between the two courts in January 2011 (24 January 2011) available at: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-02/cedh_cjue_english.pdf, accessed 1 December 2015.

  22. Halberstam [1].

  23. See below.

  24. Case 45036/98 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Ireland [2005] 42 EHRR 1.

  25. Ibid paragraph 153.

  26. Ibid paragraph 154.

  27. Ibid paragraph 155.

  28. Ibid paragraph 156.

  29. Case 235/56 X v Germany [1958] ECHR, Series A, p. 256.

  30. Case 788/60 Austria v Italy [1961] ECHR 4 YB, p. 20 (A).

  31. Anđelković v Serbia, no. 1401/08 (ECtHR, 9 April 2013).

  32. See, e.g., Case \(30696/09 M.S\).S. v Belgium and Greece [2011] ECHR 108.

  33. Dhahbi v Italy, no. 17120/09 (ECtHR, 8 April 2014).

  34. Schipani and Others v Italy, no. 38369/09 (ECtHR, 21 July 2015).

  35. Case C-160/14 João Filipe Ferreira da Silva e Brito and Others v Estado português, ECLI:EU:C:2015:565, paragraph 44.

  36. ECHR, Art. 36.

  37. Artemi and Gregory v Cyprus, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden, no 35524/06 (ECtHR, 30 September 2010).

  38. Avotiņš v Latvia, no 17502/02 (ECtHR, 25 February 2014) (Grand Chamber pending).

  39. The Member States who did not participate did not voice any objection to the agreement.

  40. View of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 13 June 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2475.

  41. See, e.g., Case 14038/88 Soering v UK [1989] 11 EHRR 439.

  42. Dean Spielmann, “Solemn hearing for the opening of the judicial year of the European Court of Human Rights,” Opening Speech, ECHR (30 January 2015).

  43. Case 30882/96 Pellegrini v Italy [2001] ECHR Rep VIII 369.

  44. Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1–23; Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of The European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1–32.

  45. Case 27853/09 X v Latvia [2012] ECHR 1 FLR 860.

  46. Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No. 1347/2000, OJ L 338, 23.12.2003, p. 1–29.

  47. The Minister for Justice and Equality v Magdalena Rostas [2014] IEHC 391.

  48. Case 399/11 Melloni v Ministerio Fiscal, ECLI:EU:C:2012:600.

  49. Case C-176 Association de médiation sociale v Union locale des syndicats CGT, Hichem Laboubi, Union départementale CGT des Bouches-du-Rhône, Confédération générale du travail (CGT), ECLI:EU:C:2014:2.

  50. In Case 583/11 Inuit Tapariit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, ECLI:EU:C:2013:625.

  51. Opinion 2/13, paragraph 191.

  52. See, e.g., 31st Annual Report on Monitoring The Application of EU Law, COM/2014/0612 final, noting that in 2013 the European Commission launched 761 infringement proceedings against Member States.

  53. Opinion 2/13, paragraph 192.

  54. ECHR Statistics 2014.

  55. See, e.g., Case 43517/09 Torreggiani and Others v Italy [2013] ECHR 007 (in relation to prison conditions in Italy which violate Article 3), and most recently Varga and Others v. Hungary, ECHR 077 (10/3/2015), and Halil Adem Hasan v. Bulgaria, ECHR 074 (10/3/15).

  56. See, e.g., Case 29217/12 Tarakhel v Switzerland [2014] ECHR 1185.

  57. Case \(30696/09 M.S\).S. v Belgium and Greece [2011] ECHR 108, para 359.

  58. See, e.g., Case \(30696/09 M.S\).S. v Belgium and Greece [2011] ECHR 108; Case 29217/12 Tarakhel v Switzerland [2014] ECHR 1185; Case 27853/09 X v Latvia [2012] ECHR 1 FLR 860.

  59. Case T-375/07 Rosario Maria Pellegrini v Commission of the European Communities [2008] ECR II-00001.

  60. Opinion 1/13 of the Court of 14 October 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2303.

References

  1. Halberstam, D.: ‘It’s the autonomy, stupid!’ A modest defense of opinion 2/13 on EU accession to the ECHR, and the way forward. Ger. Am. Law J. 105, 16 (2015). University of Michigan Law School, Public Law and Legal Theory research paper No. 439, p. 8

    Google Scholar 

  2. O’Neill, A.: Opinion 2/13 on EU accession to the ECHR: the CJEU as humpty dumpty. Eutopia Law, 18 December 2014, available at: http://eutopialaw.com/2014/12/18/opinion-213-on-eu-accession-to-the-echr-the-cjeu-as-humpty-dumpty/

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The AIRE Centre, London, United Kingdom

    Nuala Mole

Authors
  1. Nuala Mole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nuala Mole.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mole, N. Can Bosphorus be maintained?. ERA Forum 16, 467–480 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-015-0410-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-015-0410-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation