EU HRA Skeleton Rume 2020
EU HRA Skeleton Rume 2020
EU HRA Skeleton Rume 2020
au/EU Law/2019-2020
inviolability of human dignity. The Court held on the facts and in the light of the constitutional
Page
the appeals and held that those sections were incompatible with Art 47. The UKSC upheld that
position
In Volker, the court has also upheld the fundamental right of data protection (A8) by
invalidating part of EU measure which required the publication of the names of the recipients
of funds. This would be unlawful as it violates the customers’ protection of personal data
In European Parliament v Council, where the legislative powers are delegated to the
council or the commission then they must take into account the Charter Rights
TFEU AND CHARTER RIGHT BOTH WERE AT ISSUE:
Test-Achats, a consumer organization appealed to the Court of Justice that the Gender
Directive, as implemented into Belgian law, violated the fundamental rights of gender equality.
Art 5(2) of the Directive allowed insurance companies to derogate from the rule of unisex
premiums and benefits so long they can ensure the actuarial and statistical data
THE COURT DECLARES THE DIRECTIVE INVALID ON THE BASIS THAT:
1. The Directive sets in a generalized manner to all individuals without making any
differentiation, limitation or exception
2. The Directive fails to lay down any objective criteria which would ensure their use only for
purposes of prevention of serious crime
3. The Directive fails to provide guidelines for the data retention period
4. The court also find that the Directive does not provide for sufficient safeguards to ensure
effective protection of the data and it does not ensure the irreversible destruction of data at
the end of their retention period
5. The Directive does not require that the data be retained within the EU
THE APPLICATION OF THE ECHR BY THE COURT OF JUSTICE:
In Johnston v Chief Constable of the RUC, the court said that the requirement of judicial
control reflected a general principle of law common to the MS as laid down in Art 6 and 13 of
the ECHR
In AM&S Europe Ltd v Commission, the Court found that the right to legal privilege (i.e.
lawyer-client confidentiality) is protected under EU law, despite not being so protected under
the ECHR
THE APPLICATION OF THE ECHR BY THE CJEU:
Nold – The ECHR is used as a source of inspiration when interpreting the fundamental
principle of the EU law
There were two primary sources for the principles of the EU:
1. The common national constitutional traditions
2. International human rights agreements
NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITIONS:
2 Page
The CJEU referred less frequently the constitutional traditions than that of international human
rights for two principle reasons:
1. The inherent difficulty in finding common traditions across 27 MS
2. The fear of compromising the supremacy of EU law by deferring to national law
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AGREEMENTS:
The European Social Charter (Defrenne v Sabena)
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Acme Industry v Council)
Rume/ md-imranul.alam@students.mq.edu.au/EU Law/2019-2020