Fundamental rights and private enforcement in the digital age

This article addresses the shift inthe paradigm of fundamental rights protection on the Internet. More and morethe enforcement of such rights is being delegated to private Internet operators, and the urgent question is how the task of balancing conflicting rights affects the status of Internet Service Providers (ISPs). The article examines the increasing privatisation of fundamental rights enforcementon the Internet, highlighting the impact of this trend. Following the analysisof recent developments, it argues that the pillars governing ISP liability should not be altered. In particular, the early determination that ISPs should not be presumptively saddled with content monitoring tasks should not be called into question. Therefore, the regulatory pressure on ISPs shouldbe lowered, as the spectre of liability, combined with ISPs' increasing role indeciding the proper balance between conflicting rights, unduly burdens the activity of ISPs and generates incentives to delete even lawful content.     

The Consequences of Kadi: Where the Divergence of Opinion between EU and International Lawyers Lies?

The divergence of opinion between EU and international lawyers as to the consequences of the Kadi/Al Barakaat judgment is likely to remain for the foreseeable future. While international lawyers focus their analysis on the constitutional role of the UN Charter in international law, EU lawyers seek to assert the autonomy and primacy of the EU treaties. The aim of this article is to analyse where the divergence between the two perspectives can be found. The judgment of the European Court of Justice cannot be interpreted as questioning the authority of the Security Council in discharging its duties for the maintenance of international peace and security. The consequences of the General Court's case‐law as regards the EU autonomous list of terrorists should be borne in mind when faced with the implications of Kadi/Al Barakaat. It is not justified that the level of protection to the individuals or entities affected by targeted sanctions should depend on the legal framework in which the restrictive measures have been adopted (UN or EU), or on the margin of discretion left to the EU Member States by the Security Council.     

Why a Charter of Fundamental Human Rights in the EU?

Abstract. It has been argued that human rights politics is detrimental to social integration. But human rights are not merely abstract principles which, when positivated, secure negative freedom. When they are constitutionalised and turned into fundamental rights they contain a guarantee for equal freedom to all citizens. A charter of fundamental rights is a means to enhance the legal certainty of the citizens, reduce arbitrariness and moral imperialism and to institutionalise the right to justification. However, as the principle of popular sovereignty points to a particular society, and human rights point to an ideal republic, only with a cosmopolitan order can the problem of human rights politics be resolved.     

Transformation or Dilution: Fundamental Rights in the EU Social Space

Abstract:  This article argues that in developing social rights to counterbalance economic freedoms, the EU has begun to reformulate traditional notions of rights. Instead of creating rights in their traditional individualised, negative, judicially enforceable, and fault-based form, a new proactive model is emerging, which aims at institutional change, based on the notion of the active citizen and the centrality of participation in both rule formation and enforcement. It is argued that while this model has important advantages, its weakness lies in its dependence on political will. The challenge is therefore to ensure that proactive strategies are firmly centred on fundamental rights rather than political discretion. Part I briefly sketches the development of social rights in the EU; Part II examines the applicability of Third Way ideology; Part III considers European employment strategy and gender mainstreaming, asking whether they represent a dynamic new manifestation of fundamental rights at work, or a betrayal. Part IV applies a similar evaluation to the EU Charter.     

Retired EU migrants,healthcare rights and European social citizenship

Drawing on a set of 210 qualitative interviews conducted in six European countries, this paper investigates the citizenship status and experiences of retired EU migrants at both national and European levels. The paper focuses upon the experiences of two types of respondents: 'Retired Migrants' (retired nationals of one EU country who moved on retirement and reside in another EU host state) and 'Returnees', that is, those migrants who have chosen to return to their country of origin after a period of residence abroad. In particular, this paper will attempt to explore three issues: (a) The extent to which retired migrants have access to, and make use of, the public healthcare systems of the countries in which they reside. (b) Retired migrants' perceptions and experiences of those systems. (c)Whether or not a lack of access to and/or the quality of public healthcare is an important determinant of return migration decisions, i.e. moves back to the country of origin. By focusing on healthcare the paper combines an analysis of the formal welfare rights available to EU citizens who migrate on retirement (both in terms of their EU rights and their status in the receiving and exporting countries) with qualitative evidence that documents the substantive reality of such rights.     

Fundamental principles of the international protection system of intellectual property rights and the applications

Legal principle, which underlies the value of the legal system, is supposed to be the origin and basis of concrete legal rules. It has also resulted from abstracting and summarizing the value and spirit of these legal rules. In light of the universality and hierarchy of legal principle, the principles of the international protection system of intellectual property rights (IPR) can be divided into the following two types: one is the fundamental principles applied to the what, why and how a legal system shall be constructed, such as principles of sovereignty, equality and mutual benefit, joint development, and international cooperation, which also can be expressed as the principles of sovereignty, international coordination and cooperation, fairness and justice. The other type includes those existing in the legal system and capable of being applied directly, such as the principle of national treatment, principle of minimum standard, principle of independence (for industrial property right), principle of independent protection (for copyright), principle of compulsory implementing patent (for patent right) and doctrine of priority (for industrial property right), etc. In my opinion, the principles of the international protection system of IPR shall follow the latter model, indicating that they shall be provided and written in the international conventions on the grounds that they can be applied directly, and that they can be universally applied to the whole international protection system of IPR instead of exclusive application to one certain system. Hereupon, the author believes that principles concerning the international protection system of IPR should include the principles of national treatment, minimum protection standard and public interest.     

Decision-making after the EU Intergovernmental Conference

Abstract: One central point of debate at the current EU Intergovernmental Conference will be the reform of EU decision-making. This article begins by briefly summarising the current decision-making system in the EU. It then approaches in a quantitative manner how a lowering of the qualified majority threshold in the Council of Ministers would increase EU decision-making capacity. Finally, it proposes new decision-making procedures which might be particularly well-suited to overcoming EU indecision.     

Towards Administrative Human Rights in the EU. Impact of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

Abstract: This article analyses the development of administrative human rights in the EU. It demonstrates that the new right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights crowns a long process of constitutionalisation of basic administrative rights in the Community. The article discusses the meaning, content, and possible impact of Article 41 of the Charter. It explains, inter alia, the doctrinal basis of a ‘right to good administration’, and its more immediate origins. It also offers a textual analysis and commentary of Article 41. Other rights, which possibly come within the concept of ‘good administration’ but are not included in Article 41, are also suggested. The article concludes with an evaluation of Article 41 of the Charter. It argues that although Article 41 is a significant development in terms of individual administrative rights, it offers a one‐sided vision of the function of administrative law.     

Human Dignity in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and its Interpretation Before the European Court of Justice

This article argues that the EU Charter’s dignity provisions must be given a specific, expansive European meaning that underpins the importance the EU places on fundamental rights protection as a principle EU value. To this end, the article examines the EU Charter provisions on dignity and critically analyses the case law before the EU Charter had full legal effect and after it did. It finishes with looking at three areas in which the potential for an expansive interpretation of dignity could help bring the EU closer to its people and fully respect and protect dignity: asylum, criminal justice and sexual orientation.     

Sickness Absence and the Court of Justice: Examining the Role of Fundamental Rights in EU Employment Law

Being absent from work due to sickness is a critical issue for individuals and their employers, but it has traditionally fallen outside the scope of EU employment legislation. This article argues that this is changing; it examines case‐law under the Working Time and Employment Equality Directives. The article considers the justifications that the Court of Justice has advanced to explain this expansion in EU employment law. It finds that the Court has, at times, invoked fundamental social rights as a basis for interpreting employment legislation in a manner favourable to workers. Yet the way in which the Court deploys rights‐based reasoning can be difficult to anticipate, not least the countervailing weight attached to the interests of employers. The case studies indicate that fundamental rights discourse offers a possible foundation for more extensive readings of employment legislation, but it is not a simple ‘trump card’ for advocates of stronger worker protection.     

EU citizenship and (fundamental) rights: Empirical,normative, and conceptual problems

There is a close connection between EU citizenship and rights, both in the law and literature. This article claims that EU lawyers' understanding of EU citizenship and rights suffers from empirical, normative, and conceptual shortcomings. I will point out that there has been insufficient awareness for the boundedness of EU citizenship, the political structure of the EU and the constraints this (realistically) imposes on the ‘meaningfulness’ of EU citizenship. EU citizenship must not be understood as requiring an elaborate set of equal rights for all Union citizens throuzghout the EU, but valued for its ability to allow its status holders to enjoy (almost) full membership in the Member States of which they do not possess nationality.     

The dark side(s) of the EU Directive on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market

China-EU Law Journal - The article examines some pivotal aspects of Directive (EU) 2019/790, which is the new legislative act adopted by the European Union to adapt copyright to the evolving...     

Constitutional Balance in the EU after the Euro‐Crisis

This article analyses how the European Union's response to the euro‐crisis has altered the constitutional balance upon which its stability is based. It argues that the stability and legitimacy of any political system requires the structural incorporation of individual and political self‐determination. In the context of the EU, this requirement is met through the idea of constitutional balance, with ‘substantive’, ‘institutional’ and ‘spatial’ dimensions. Analysing reforms to EU law and institutional structure in the wake of the crisis – such as the establishment of the ESM, the growing influence of the European Council and the creation of a stand‐alone Fiscal Compact – it is argued that recent reforms are likely to have a lasting impact on the ability of the EU to mediate conflicting interests in all three areas. By undermining its constitutional balance, the response to the crisis is likely to dampen the long‐term stability and legitimacy of the EU project.     

The Horizontal Effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU: Rediscovering the Reasons for Horizontality

This article analyses the horizontal effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Horizontal effect has been an integral part of the Union's application of fundamental rights, especially in the field of equality. However, the codification of fundamental rights in the Charter raises important questions as to how horizontal effect will continue to apply in the EU, particularly in the aftermath of the Court's reticent rulings in cases such as Dominguez and Association de Médiation Sociale. This article argues that the emphasis on prior approaches to horizontal effect in recent rulings fails to address the profound constitutional issues that the horizontal effect of a fundamental rights catalogue raises, which concern the role of private responsibility within the developing constitutional order of the European Union. It therefore calls for a more systematically theorised approach towards the horizontal application of fundamental rights under the Charter framework.     

The Patients’ Rights Directive (2011/24/EU) – Providing (some) rights to EU residents seeking healthcare in other Member States

This article presents the main elements of Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, commonly known as the Patient’s Rights Directive. It is the latest EU initiative with regard to European Health Care and the Single Market. The main elements of the Directive contain provisions related to the prior authorisation of health care in another Member State, the reimbursement of such health care and the removal of unjustified obstacles to achieving these aims.These provisions largely reflect the recent case law of the European Court of the Justice (ECJ). Amongst these are provisions involving the use of personal data. Such provisions will engage data protection issues and will have to be carried out according to the data protection directives. Alongside this primary aim of codifying ECJ case law the Patient’s Rights Directive also introduces novel initiatives aimed at fostering cross border cooperation between various elements of national healthcare systems.Part 1 of this contribution will describe the legal basis and the aims of the PRD, Part 2 will describe the principle obligations placed on the Member States with regard to reimbursement, Parts 3 and 4 will describe other informational and procedural requirements placed upon the Member States of Treatment and Affiliation. Finally Part 5 will outline some of the novel initiatives that have been included in the PRD.The increases in the frequency of cross border-treatment that this directive attempts to facilitate are likely to see a concurrent increase in cross-border patient information flows. Such data flows will be subject to the Union’s provisions on Data Protection. It remains uncertain whether the EU’s Data Protection regime will act as inhibitor to cross-border medical treatment or rather represent a gold standard that allows patients to engage in such activities with peace of mind. The Patient’s Rights Directive will form part of the EU’s future e-Health strategy which envisages a large increase in the fluidity of patient data. A discussion of this directive is therefore merited in this journal.     

Gender Equality on the Boards of EU Companies: Between Economic Efficiency,Fundamental Rights and Democratic Legitimisation of Economic Governance

Currently, there is a large gap between the proportion of employed and well‐educated women and those sitting on the boards of EU companies. This gap should be significantly diminished because it is mandated by the EU fundamental right of equality between women and men (Article 23 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights), and by the need for democratic legitimisation of the EU and of its economic governance (Articles 2 and 3(3) TEU). However, the Commission's proposal for a directive on improving the gender balance among non‐executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges does not constitute an appropriate legal solution for this problem because it infringes the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity. There are many other instruments than compulsory gender quotas that can be used by EU institutions to promote more gender‐balanced boards of EU companies. The potential of such measures has not been utilised yet in full.     

隐私权:刑事程序基本权

隐私权是宪法权利,亦是刑事程序基本权.隐私权作为刑事程序调整的重要范围,保护着个人对刑法执行至关重要的有罪或者无罪信息的私有,以及对不让政府插手的个人信息的享有.加强刑事领域的隐私权保护,意味着要在政府的规范需要和个人隐私权益上达成大量开放式的司法平衡,对政府操纵背景条件的能力进行有限限制.漠视隐私权的刑事程序比我们想象的更具有事实性的恶果,其对事实结果的影响可能导致一些不良趋势.为此,应关注作为宪法权利的隐私权在刑事诉讼中的属性、价值及作用,加大对我国刑事程序中隐私权的保护.