Www.europeanrights.eu
[pic]
OBSERVATORY ON THE RESPECT FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN EUROPE
1
2 Newsletter n. 37
15 March 2013
Below are the main updates concerning case-law and acts relevant to the protection of fundamental rights, as published in the web site europeanrights.eu
For the acts of the European Union we have included:
• The European Parliament Resolution of 06.02.2013 on the 57th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW): Elimination and prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls.
. For the Council of Europe we would like to highlight the following resolutions and
. recommendations:
.
. of the Parliamentary Assembly:
• The Resolution 1922 and the Recommendation 2011 of 25.01.2013, “Trafficking of migrant workers for forced labour”;
• The Resolution 1921 of 25.01.2013, “Gender equality, reconciliation of personal and working life and shared responsibility”;
• The Resolution 1920 of 24.01.2013, “The state of media freedom in Europe”;
• The Resolution 1918, and the Recommendation 2010 of 24.01.2013, “Migration and asylum: mounting tensions in the eastern Mediterranean”;
• The Resolution 1916 and the Recommendation 2008 of 23.01.2013, “Georgia and Russia: the humanitarian situation in the conflict – and war – affected areas”
• The Recommendation 2009 of 23.01.2013, “Towards a Council of Europe Convention to combat trafficking in organs, tissues and cells of human origin”;
• The Resolution 1912 and the Recommendation 2006 of 22.01.2013, “The situation in Kosovo and the role of the Council of Europe”.
. For the Court of Justice, we added the decisions:
.
• 28.02.2013, case C-427/11, Kenny et a., on the principle of equal pay for men and women;
• 26.02.2013, case C-399/11, Melloni, on the European arrest warrant, the right to a fair trial and the right of the defence;
• 26.02.2013, case C-11/11, Folkerts, on the passengers’ right to compensation for a delay equal to or in excess of three hours;
• 26.02.2013, case C-617/10, Åkerberg Fransson, on the principle of the ne bis in idem and the scope of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
• 21.02.2013, case C-46/12, L.N., on the freedom of movement for workers and the aid for studies to persons having the status of “workers”;
• 21.02.2013, case C-111/12, Ordine degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia and others, on the mutual recognition of qualifications and the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services;
• 21.02.2013, case C-282/11, Salgado González, on the freedom of movement and the calculation of old-age pensions;
• 21.02.2013, case C-332/11, ProRail BV, on the cooperation in the taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters and the direct taking of evidence;
• 21.02.2013, case C-472/11, Banif Plus Bank Zrt, on unfair terms in consumer contracts;
• 21.02.2013, case C-561/11, Fédération Cynologique Internationale, on Community trade marks and intellectual property;
• 21.02.2013, case C-619/11, Patricia Dumont de Chassart, on social security, the freedom of movement for workers and the family benefits for orphans;
• 21.02.2013, case C-243/11, RVS Levensverzekeringen NV, on the freedom of movement and the direct life assurance;
• 7.02.2013, case C-543/10, Refcomp SpA: the Court states that a jurisdiction clause incorporated in a contract for sale between the manufacturer and the buyer of goods cannot be relied on by a sub-buyer of those goods, unless he has agreed to that clause;
• 31.01.2013, case C-175/11, H.I.D., B.A., on the recognition of the refugee status and the right of the applicant to lodge the application;
• 31.01.2013, case C-12/11, Denise McDonagh vs. Ryanair Ltd, on the obligation of the airline company to provide assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight due to ‘extraordinary circumstances’;
• 28.01.2013, case C-396/11, Ciprian Vasile Radu, on the refusal of the execution of a European arrest warrant on the ground that the requested person had not been heard in the issuing Member State before the arrest warrant was issued;
• 24.01.2013, joined cases C-186/11 and C-209/11, Stanleybet International Ltd and others and Sportingbet plc, on games of chance, freedom to establishment and to provide services and on consumers’ protection;
• 22.01.2013, case C-283/11, Sky Österreich GmbH, on private property, freedom of enterprise, freedom to receive information and pluralism of the media;
• 17.01.2013, case C-23/12, Mohamad Zakaria, on the Schengen Borders Code and the right of access to a court;
• 15.01.2013, case C-416/10, Jozef Križan, on the impossibility to invoke the protection of trade secrets to refuse the access to an urban planning decision having significant effects on the environment;
And for the General Court the decisions:
• 20.02.2013, case T-492/10, Melli Bank plc, on the freezing of funds, rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection;
and the Opinions of the Advocate General:
• 21.02.2013, joined cases C-523/11 and C-585/11, Prinz and Seeberger, on the grant of funds for the studies only in favour of persons who have been residing for at least three years in the Member State and the freedom of movement;
• 21.02.2013, case C-648/11, MA, BT, DA, on the right to asylum of an unaccompanied minor;
• 7.02.2013, case C-20/12, Elodie Giersch and others vs. Luxembourg, on the subjection of the granting of financial aid for higher studies to children of frontier workers to the requirement of the residence in the State and on the principle of non discrimination.
For the European Court of Human Rights we would like to highlight the decisions:
• 28.02.2013, Inadmissibility decision, Bayrakcı vs. Turkey, (n. 2643/09), according to which a civil servant’s complaint of inadequate workplace facilities for a disabled person should have been brought before the Turkish administrative courts;
• 19.02.2013, García Mateos vs. Spain, (n. 38285/09), according to which the Spanish authorities failed to remedy to the discrimination on grounds of sex and therefore violated the right to a fair trial and the prohibition of discrimination;
• 19.02.2013, Gani vs. Spain, (n. 61800/08), according to which the post-traumatic stress suffered by the rape victim justified the restriction of the rights of the defence;
• 19.02.2013, Grand Chamber Judgment, X and others vs. Austria, (n. 19010/07), according to which the impossibility of the second-parent adoption in a same-sex relationship in Austria is discriminatory in comparison with the situation of unmarried different-sex couples;
• 12.02.2013, Vojnity vs. Hungary, (n. 29617/07), on the violation of the prohibition of discrimination concerning the total removal of a father’s access rights because of his religion;
• 12.02.2013, Eduard Popa vs. Republic of Moldova, (n. 17008/07), on the circumstance that the police brutality, which left the detainee severely disabled, could not be proven due to the inadequacy of the investigation;
• 07.02.2013, Grand Chamber Judgment, Fabris vs. France, (n. 16574/08), which deems unjustified refusing an illegitimate child the inheritance rights provided by a new law;
• 05.02.2013, Zokhidov vs. Russia, (n. 67286/10), according to which the deportation from Russia of an Uzbek man, who was suspected of membership of an illegal religious organisation, would have exposed him to the risk of inhuman and degrading treatments in his home country;
• 29.01.2013, Horváth and Kiss vs. Hungary, (n. 11146/11), in which the Court deemed that the placement of a Roma child in a school for mentally disabled violated the right to education and the prohibition of discrimination;
• 29.01.2013, Zolotas vs. Greece (n. 2), (n. 66610/09), on the violation of the right to property: the Greek authorities confiscated a bank account that had been dormant for twenty years;
• 29.01.2013, Betteridge vs. the United Kingdom, (n. 1497/10), on the excessive delay (13 months) of the Parole Board review concerning the lawfullness of the applicant’s detention;
• 22.01.2013, Camilleri vs. Malta, (n. 42931/10), in which the Court found that the Maltese law on drug trafficking was not sufficiently foreseeable (violation of article 7 of the Convention);
• 22.01.2013, Mihailovs vs. Latvia, (n. 35939/10), in which the Court found that a disabled man should not have been held in a social care institution against his will for years without a review;
• 22.01.2013, Suleymanov vs. Russia, (n. 32501/11), on the lack of effective investigations on a young man's alleged abduction and ill-treatment by State officials in Chechnya;
• 22.01.2013, Şükran Aydin and others vs. Turkey, (n. 49197/06), on the freedom of expression: the convictions for speaking Kurdish during the election campaigns breached such right;
• 17.01.2013, Karabet and others vs. Ukraine, (n. 38906/07 and 52025/07), on the tortures suffered by a group of detainees during a search and security operation following their hunger strike;
• 17.01.2013, Mosendz vs. Ukraine, (n. 52013/08), according to which the authorities failed to duly investigate on the death of a conscript, who was allegedly driven to suicide by his supervisors’ bullying;
• 15.01.2013, Eweida and others vs. the United Kingdom, (n. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10), on the freedom of religion and the principle of non discrimination: the right to manifest one’s religion at work must be protected as well as balanced with the other people’s rights;
• 10.01.2013, Agnelet vs. France, (n. 61198/08) and Legillon vs. France, (n. 53406/10) on the lack of reasoning in the decisions of the Assize Courts in France;
• 10.01.2013, Claes vs. Belgium, (n. 43418/09), with which the Court criticized the inadequate care of persons with mental disabilities in Belgian prisons;
• 09.01.2013, Oleksandr Volkov vs. Ukraine, (n. 21722/11), according to which the proceedings leading to the dismissal of a Supreme Court Judge were unfair;
• 13.12.2012, Flamenbaum and others vs. France, (n. 3675/04 and 23264/04), according to which the extension of the main runway at Deauville Airport did not amount to the violation of the right to the respect for private and family life of the complainants nor of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.
For the extra-European area we have included:
• The judgment of the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda of 04.02.2013, case Justin Mugenzi and Prosper Mugiraneza vs. The Prosecutor, which acquitted the accused, who had been both convicted to 30 years’ imprisonment by the chamber of first instance for conspiracy to commit genocide and direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
• The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada of 20.12.2012, on the balance between the freedom of religion and the right to a fair trial, concerning the possibility for a witness to wear the niqab during the hearing in court;
• The judgment of the Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda of 20.12.2012, case The Prosecutor vs. Augustin Ngirabatware, which convicted the accused, who was the former minister of planning, to 35 years’ imprisonment for the crimes of direct and public incitement to commit genocide and rape as crimes against humanity;
• The judgment of the Chambre de Première Instance II of the International Criminal Court of 18.12.2012, case Le Procureur vs. Mathieu Ngudjolo, which acquitted the accused, who was a commander of the Democratic Republic of Congo army, for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the attack on the village of Bogoro on 24 February 2003;
• The judgment of the Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia of 12.12.2012, case Prosecutor vs. Zdravko Tolimir, which sentenced the accused, who was the former assistant commander for intelligence and security in the VRS Main Staff of the Bosnian Serb army, to life imprisonment for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed against the community of the enclaves of Srebrenica and Žepa;
• The judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of 30.11.2012, case Masacre de Santo Domingo vs. Colombia, which sentenced the State for the violation of the right to life, personal integrity, property and freedom of movement and residence in relation to the launch of a cluster device on the urban zone of the village of Santo Domingo by the Colombian Air Force and for the ensuing attacks against the survivors; the judgment of 29.11.2012, case García y familiares vs. Guatemala, which sentenced the State for the forced disappearance in 1984 of the trade unionist Edgar Fernando García by members of the Brigada de Operaciones Especiales of the National Police; the judgment of 28.11.2012, case Artavia Murillo y otros (“fecundacíon in vitro”) vs. Costa Rica, which sentenced the State for the violation of the right to personal integrity, freedom and respect for private and family life for the prohibition of artificial insemination, introduced after a decision of the Supreme Court of Justice issued in the year 2000. To reach its conclusions the Court analyzed the legal status of the embryo in relation to the right to life on the basis of the principal international and regional instruments for the protection of human rights, also applying a substantial jurisprudence of the Court of Strasbourg; the judgment of 27.11.2012, case Castillo Gonzáles y otros vs. Venezuela, which excluded the responsibility of the State for the lack of adequate investigations and the violation of the right to personal integrity with regard to the homicide of Joe Luis Castillo Gonzáles and the wounding of his relatives; the judgment of 23.11.2012, case Mohamed vs. Argentina, which sentenced the State for the violation of the right to an effective remedy; the judgment of 20.11.2012, case Gudiel Álvarez y otros (“Diario Militar”) vs. Guatemala, on the State responsibility in relation to the alleged forced disappearance of 26 persons during the years 1983-1985, the alleged forced disappearance and extrajudicial execution of Rudy Gustavo Figueroa Muñoz, as well as the alleged detention and torture of Wendy Santizo Méndez, whose names were included in a document of the military intelligence known as “Diario Militar”; the judgment of 25.10.2012, case Masacres de El Mozote y lugares aledaños vs. El Salvador, which sentenced the State for the massacre of citizens, most of which were children, perpetrated by the army in the hamlet of El Mozote and in the surrounding territories between 11 and 13 December 1981 and for the serious violations of human rights committed against the survivors; and the judgment of 24.10.2012, case Nadege Dorzema y otros vs. República Dominicana, which sentenced the State for the violation of the right to life, personal integrity, freedom and effective remedies, also recalling the jurisprudence of the Court of Strasbourg in the matter of non discrimination.
As far as case law of national courts is concerned, the following decisions must be highlighted:
• Austria: the decision of the Verfassungsgerichtshof of 28.11.2012, for reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice on the compatibility of articles from 3 to 9 of Directive 2006/24/EC, on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications, with articles 7, 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
• Belgium: the decision of the Cour Constitutionnelle of 06.12.2012, which rejects the claim lodged pursuant to constitutional norms, the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, against the law of 1 June 2012 which prohibits the use, in public places, of clothes that may entirely or for the most part hide the face of the person;
• Bosnia and Herzegovina: the decision of the Ustavni sud (Constitutional Court) of 23.11.2012, in the matter of access to justice, which recalls the jurisprudence of the Court of Strasbourg;
• France: the decision of the Court of Cassation of 15.2.2013, which, in the matter of unfair and slanderous commercial practices examines the norms of the ECHR; the decision of 13.2.2013, which in the matter of change of one’s civil status recalls the ECHR; and the decision of 13.2.2013, in a case of repatriation of a child towards the United States, which recalls the Convention of New York;
• Germany: the decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht of 19.02.2013, on the right of homosexual couples, who are bound by civil unions, to adopt the adoptive child of the partner, which recalls the jurisprudence of the Courts of Strasbourg and Luxembourg; the decision of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court of Appeal) Baden-Württemberg in Mannheim of 6.11.2012, which recognizes certain increases of the salaries of a homosexual couple in the light of EU law; the decision of the Bundesgerichtshof - BGH - of 6.12.2012, which, in the matter of expulsion of a clandestine Turkish national, who was the father of a not yet born child from a German woman who was married to another man, deemed that Directive 2008/115/EC and article 8 of the ECHR were applicable to such case; the decisions of the VG Stuttgart of 14.08.2012 and 2.07.2012, which recall article 4 of the EU Charter of fundamental rights; the decision of the VG Karlsruhe of 6.03.2012, on the right to asylum, which recalls articles 4 and 18 of the EU Charter of fundamental rights; the decision of the LArbG Baden-Württemberg of 24.02.2012, on sickness benefits, which recall article 31 §2 of the EU Charter of fundamental rights;
• Great Britain: the decision of the England and Wales High Court of 12.02.2013, on the right to family life with regard to the case of a child whose custody to a single woman had been revoked, following the fact that the woman became blind after surgery for brain cancer; the decision of 17.01.2013, establishing the competence to judge on the claim lodged, pursuant to the Human Rights Act, against actions of undercover agents (in the specific case, he started close relationships with some activists of an environmentalist group in order to obtain information), which also recalls the jurisprudence of the Court of Strasbourg; the decision of 01.02.2013, in which the Court states that the practice of shouting violently against a person under investigation during the interrogation in order to gain information is incompatible with the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatments; and the decision of 24.01.2013 on the balance between the right to the freedom of expression and the right to privacy of some employees of a bank, who were involved in the LIBOR scandal; the decision of the England and Wales Court of Appeal of 13.02.2013 on the right to compensation, in accordance to article 1 of the Protocol 1 of the ECHR, for the denial of a state subsidy; the decision of 12.02.2013, in which the Court recognizes the violation of the prohibition of forced labour in the obligation imposed by the State to two unemployed persons, who were receiving the unemployment benefit, to accept unpaid jobs offers; the decision of 06.02.2013 on the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatments, with regard to the practice of using on children straitjackets and other restraint techniques during their detention in Secure Training Centres; the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) of 30.01.2013, in which the tribunal states the incompatibility of the new rules in the matter of immigration with the right to private and family life; the decision of the Central Arbitration Committee of 29.01.2013, on the compatibility of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 with article 11 of the ECHR, the European Union legislation and the European Social Charter;
• Hungary: the decision of the Magyar Köztársaság Alkotmánybírósága (Constitutional Court) of 04.01.2013, which, recalling the jurisprudence of the Court of Strasbourg, stated the constitutional illegitimacy of some norms of the law amending the electoral procedures, which was approved on 26 November 2012, for the violation of the right to vote;
• Ireland: the decision of the Supreme Court of 06.12.2012, on the obligation of the authorities to provide the reasons of their administrative decisions, which recalls the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice; another decision of the 06.12.2012, in the matter of European arrest warrant, in the light of the decision of the Court of Justice in the case Pupino; and the decision of the 29.11.2012, which provides a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice in relation to the compatibility of national measures of implementation of norms in the matter of subsidiary protection with the norms of the “Qualifications Directive”; the decision of the High Court of 22.01.2013, in the matter of family reunification, which recalls Community law; the decision of the 10.03.2012, which rejects the claim lodged by a woman affected by multiple sclerosis on the constitutional illegitimacy of the prohibition of physician-assisted suicide, provided by section 2 of the Criminal Law (Suicide) Act 1993, and on its incompatibility with the norms of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, applying the jurisprudence of the Court of Strasbourg; the decision of 14.12.2012, which judges on the alleged violation of the right to freedom of a person interned in a psychiatric hospital as a voluntary patient, in the light of the jurisprudence of the Court of Strasbourg; the decision of 07.12.2012, in the matter of subsidiary protection and expulsion, which recalls Community law and the jurisprudence of the Courts of Strasbourg and Luxembourg;
• Italy: the decision of the Constitutional Court n. 7 of 14.01.2013, which, in the matter of loss of parental authority following a serious conviction, recalls the UN and the Council of Europe Conventions with regard to the violations of the rights of the child; the decision n. 2 of 14.01.2013, which, in the matter of recognition by the autonomous province of Bolzano of social benefits to non Italian nationals, recalls EU legislation and some norms of the Treaties; and the decision n. 272/2012 of 6.12.2012, in the matter of civil mediation, which examines EU legislation in such matter; the decision of the Court of Cassation n. 4772/2013 of 30.01.2013, which, in the matter of compensation in favour of prisoners subjected to degrading treatments, recalls the jurisprudence of the Court of Strasbourg; the decision n. 48797/12 of 17.12.2012, which, in the matter of information on the indictment, recalls the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights; the decision n. 31064/12 of 31.07.2012, which, in the matter of testimony given by the author of a crime against other co-authors, recalls the jurisprudence of the ECHR; the decision of the Court of Appeal of Brescia of 13.01.2013 which, in the matter of racial discrimination, recalls Directive 2000/45/EC; the order for reference for a preliminary ruling of the Court of Naples of 13.02.2013, concerning the norm limiting the compensation in case of conversion of fixed-term contracts into contracts with no time limit, which recalls EU legislation in the matter of fixed-term contracts and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice; the orders for reference for a preliminary ruling of the Court of Naples of 29.01.2013, concerning the legitimacy of fixed-term contracts of the teachers of nursery schools and crèches and of 2.01.2013 concerning fixed-term contracts of the school teachers, which recall the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice and the EU Directives on fixed-term contracts and the obligation to give information on working conditions; the decision of the Administrative Regional Court of Lazio of 13.01.2013, in the matter of waste, which recalls EU legislation in such matter; the decision of the Court of Rome of 13.12.2012 which, in the matter of subsidiary protection, recalls the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice; the decision of the Administrative Regional Court of Puglia of 7.12.2012 which, in the matter of family reunification, recalls Directive 2003/86/EC; the decision of the Court of Trieste of 24.11.2012 and of the Court of Venice of 24.01.2012 which, in the matter of discrimination of non EU nationals with regard to the granting of social benefits by local authorities, recall EU legislation and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice; the decision of the Court of Tivoli of 13.11.2012, which in the matter of ne bis in idem recalls article 50 of the EU Charter of fundamental rights; and the two decrees of the Court of Reggio Emilia respectively of 11.10.2012 and of 29.08.2012 which, in the matter of forced removal of a national of a EU Member State, recall the norms of the Treaties and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice;
• Spain: the decision of the Tribunal Constitucional of 17.12.2012, on the alleged violation of the right to the privacy of communications in the use of company means, which recalls the jurisprudence of the Court of Strasbourg; and the decision of 12.11.2012, which finds a violation of the right to effective remedies, applying the jurisprudence of the Court of Strasbourg; the decision of the Tribunal Supremo of 04.12.2012, on the relation between freedom of expression and information and the right to honour, which recalls Community law and the jurisprudence of the Court of Strasbourg.
For what concerns comments, we have included the following texts:
Articles:
Andrea Allamprese, Amos Andreoni "Employees on fixed-term contracts in the public administration: outline of the EU and national jurisprudence "
Carlo Caldarini, Paola Cammilli “Trade union’s action for individual protection: a cross-country action”
Maria Antonietta La Notte Chirone “First comments on law n. 234/2012: participation of Italy to the European Union”
Luisa Marin “Protecting the EU’s borders from … fundamental rights? Squaring the circle between Frontex’s border surveillance and human rights”
Antonio Ruggeri “The “intensity” of the binding force of the jurisprudence, with special regard to the relation between the ECHR and national law in view of the definition of the Constitution as a “system””
Notes and comments:
Roberto Conti “Loose thoughts, at a first reading, on the decision of the Court of Human Rights in the matter of adoption by a couple of the same sex and the effectiveness of the decision of the Court of Strasbourg – GC, 19 February 2013, X and others vs. Austria”
Roberto Cosio “Discriminations on grounds of age: the national judge transforms himself into European judge”
Fabio Maria Ferrari “Violation of art. 3 of the ECHR and positive obligations of the Member States with regard to criminal investigations”
Alberto Marcheselli “Towards the charter of the rights of the European taxpayer? From the French jurisprudence a starting point for the direct applicability of the ECHR norms in taxation matters”
Domenico Passione “From the affaire Sulejmanovic to the affaire Torregiani and others: from the violated to the denied right”
Reports:
Calvo Gallego Javier “Powers of the entrepreneur and ideologically charged tasks in the recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights”
Roberto Conti “Looking for the role of art. 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights in the family planet”
Ferradans Caramés Carmen “Application of the principle of non discrimination to the calculation of the periods of absence from work in fixed-term contracts”
Joachim Gauck, President of the German Federal Republic - “Europe: renewing confidence – strengthening commitment”
Pierpaolo Gori “The importance of comparative law in the decisions of the ECHR”
Ernesto Lupo “Inauguration speech for the judicial year 2013”
Roberto Mastroianni “Reforms on the functioning of the European Union from the “Progetto Spinelli” of 1984 to the Treaty of Lisbon: from utopia to reality”
Luigi Marini “The meaning of a European jurisdiction (and of a congress)”
Giorgio Napolitano, President of the Italian Republic – “Towards the Political Union: the process for the construction of a European leadership”
Ignazio Juan Patrone “10 YEARS OF EUROJUST. Operational Achievements and Future Challenges”
Cesare Pinelli “The Constitution at the testing bench of the world financial crisis. The international dimension of the financial crisis and its effects on the institutions of supra-national cooperation and the relation between these institutions and the national legal systems”
Cesare Pinelli “European Courts (in the crisis of the Union)”
Guido Raimondi “The disputed concept of Consensus and the recent trends of the jurisprudence of the Court of Strasbourg with regard to articles 8 – 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights”
Documents:
European Court of Human Rights – Statistic Analysis 2012
European Court of Human Rights – Annual Report 2012
Magistratura democratica – Gruppo Europa “Document for the Congress of magistratura democratica “
Report by the French Senate of 11.12.2012 on the institution of a parquet européen
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.