The European Court of Human Rights and the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

Callewaert, Johan

doi:10.1007/s12027-007-0033-4

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…54 This remedy is open to criticism, although a Member State can elude the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that they were implementing their obligations as a Member of the organisation, as the EU it is not a signatory to the ECHR so there is no accountability mechanism in relation to it. 55 In the case of asset confiscation, freezing and restraint, the relevant EU legislation provides leeway for Member States to implement a wider range of measures and therefore could inadvertently lead to them stepping out with the protection of the 'equivalent protection' doctrine and into the jurisdiction of the ECtHR. The EU may argue that such measures are in the interests of the EU as a whole and consequently justify any limitations on the rights of individuals.…”

Section: Pre-lisbon Human Rights Jurisdiction Of the Court Of Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

Non-conviction Based Sanctions: The Court of Justice v. the European Court of Human Rights, Who Decides?

Egan

2011

Eur J Crime Crim Law Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the Lisbon Treaty enters into force the commitment to the creation of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice is demonstrated through the expansion in the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union. This expansion is heralded by the Stockholm Programme as providing an opportunity to 'ensure consistency of interpretation' but the position of the Court of Justice in relation to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is yet to be clarified. In particular, the Stockholm programme emphasises the importance of indentifying and confiscating criminal assets. However, there are disparate practices across the EU as to how the proceeds of crime are recovered. Potential for human rights issues are particularly heightened in those systems which adopt non-conviction based sanctions. The Stockholm programme claims that the case-law of the Court of Justice and ECtHR will be able to develop 'in step' but conflict appears to be imminent. Taking the specific case of non-conviction based recovery of the proceeds of crime this paper will attempt to map the relationship and responsibilities of the Court of Justice and ECtHR post-Lisbon.

show abstract

Section: Pre-lisbon Human Rights Jurisdiction Of the Court Of Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

Non-conviction Based Sanctions: The Court of Justice v. the European Court of Human Rights, Who Decides?

Egan

2011

Eur J Crime Crim Law Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Testing the Co-respondent Mechanism from the Strasbourg Court’s Perspective: Three Distinctive Cases with Three Distinctive Scenarios

Korenica

2015

The EU Accession to the ECHR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Lisbon Treaty

Piris¹,

Merkel²

2010

234

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the controversies and difficulties which preceded the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty, it is easy to forget that the Treaty is a complex legal document in need of detailed analysis for its impact to be fully understood. Jean-Claude Piris, the Director General of the Legal Service of the Council of the European Union, provides such an analysis, looking at the historical and political contexts of the Treaty, its impact on the democratic framework of the EU and its provisions in relation to substantive law. Impartial legal analysis of the EU's functions, its powers and the treaties which govern it make this the seminal text on the most significant recent development in EU law.

show abstract

The European Court of Human Rights and the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

Abstract: the development of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice under the

Cited by 5 publications

References 3 publications

Non-conviction Based Sanctions: The Court of Justice v. the European Court of Human Rights, Who Decides?

Non-conviction Based Sanctions: The Court of Justice v. the European Court of Human Rights, Who Decides?

Testing the Co-respondent Mechanism from the Strasbourg Court’s Perspective: Three Distinctive Cases with Three Distinctive Scenarios

The Lisbon Treaty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About