The thesis evaluates how effective the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the EU have been in promoting the human rights of vulnerable migrants. It thereby pursues two objectives. Firstly, it questions legal scholarship that has identified certain rulings of the two courts as vital for migrant rights but which have not analysed their impact empirically. Secondly, it makes a methodological contribution to the evaluation of the effectiveness of international courts by proposing (and applying) an 'issue-based' methodology which assesses judicial bodies for their ability to resolve specific social and political problem. For these purposes, eight carefully selected 'key cases' are analysed in terms of three effectiveness types, namely law development, case-specific, and strategic effectiveness. The empirical materials used include interviews with 28 persons who were directly or indirectly involved in the selected key cases. Legal and empirical analyses show varying and complex results for the different cases, with some general trends emerging. Firstly, the case law of the courts is characterised by a significant inconsistency, resulting in a 'dilemmatic adjudication' that diminishes the impact of even rights-affirming judgments. Secondly, the 'case-specific' impact on the persons or the countries concerned remains contingent as governments and domestic courts manage to contain the ruling. Lastly, lawyers and NGOs increasingly use the courts in a strategic way, which can elevate impact on policy. Yet, this will depend on the resources invested, raising the question whether such strategies are the most efficient way to promote migrant rights. / Doctorat en Sciences juridiques / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Member States' observations in proceedings before the Court of Justice compared with the

: This thesis aims to analyze the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the field of legal protection of access to environmental decision making, with prejudice to the EIA process, consequently to ascertain the compliance of the legal order of the Czech Republic with the law of the European Union in the area of study and therefore assess the possibilities of the future developments in this matter. To do so, this thesis firstly describes the basic properties of access to environmental decision making and its legal basis both in the international law and the law of the European Union. Secondly, the pertinent statutes of the Czech Republic are analyzed in this regard on the basis of the Case C-368/09, Comission v. Czech Republic and then conclusion is reached that even after the amendment of Act No. 100/2001 Coll., on the ascertaining of effects on the environment, Czech Republic does not comply with the requirement to correctly transpose the European Union law. The analysis proceeds with next step to ascertain whether Czech Republic complies at least with the requirement to implement the European Union law accordingly. This goal is accomplished by analyzing the caselaw of the Court of Justice dealing with legal problems pertaining to the legal orders of Federal Republic of Germany...

The aim of this thesis is catch a comprehensive procedure of the Czech republic during the defense of national interests in proceedings before the Court of Justice of the EU. First the thesis characterizes methods of the Agent during his representation of the Czech republic before institutions of the EU. After that the thesis characterizes the most important institution for the thesis, the Court of Justice of the EU. In thesis reader can read about the most important references for a preliminary ruling, that the Czech republic took part in. The second largest chapter deals with Infrigement proceedings. The thesis ends with summary of others proceedings.

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) is a regional economic community established by Treaty in 1992 and comprising fifteen southern African countries. The Tribunal, SADC’s judicial organ, is situated in Windhoek, Namibia and became operational in 2005. The Tribunal enjoys a wide mandate to hear and determine disputes between states, states and SADC, and between natural and legal persons and states or SADC. It is mandated to develop its own jurisprudence having regard to applicable treaties, general rules and principles of public international law, and principles and rules of law of member states. Being new in the field, the Tribunal has not as yet developed a significant jurisprudence although it has delivered a number of judgments some of which are referred to in the study. The Tribunal is expected to develop its own jurisprudence having regard to the jurisprudence developed by other international courts involved in the judicial settlement of disputes. The study offers a comparative review and analysis of the jurisprudence of two selected courts: the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ). The focus is on four selected areas considered crucial to the functioning of the Tribunal and the selected courts. The study discusses the parties with access to the Tribunal and compares this with access to the ICJ and ECJ. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is contrasted with that of the two selected courts. The sources of law available to the Tribunal are discussed and contrasted to those of the two courts. Lastly, the enforcement of law in SADC is contrasted to what applies in relation to the selected courts. In each selected area, similarities and differences between the Tribunal and the two courts are noted and critically evaluated. Further, rules and principles developed by the two selected courts are explored in depth with a view to identifying those which could be of use to the Tribunal. Recommendations are made on rules and principles which could be of use to the Tribunal and on possible improvements to the SADC treaty regime. / Constitutional, International and Indigenous Law / LL.D.

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) is a regional economic community established by Treaty in 1992 and comprising fifteen southern African countries. The Tribunal, SADC’s judicial organ, is situated in Windhoek, Namibia and became operational in 2005. The Tribunal enjoys a wide mandate to hear and determine disputes between states, states and SADC, and between natural and legal persons and states or SADC. It is mandated to develop its own jurisprudence having regard to applicable treaties, general rules and principles of public international law, and principles and rules of law of member states. Being new in the field, the Tribunal has not as yet developed a significant jurisprudence although it has delivered a number of judgments some of which are referred to in the study. The Tribunal is expected to develop its own jurisprudence having regard to the jurisprudence developed by other international courts involved in the judicial settlement of disputes. The study offers a comparative review and analysis of the jurisprudence of two selected courts: the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ). The focus is on four selected areas considered crucial to the functioning of the Tribunal and the selected courts. The study discusses the parties with access to the Tribunal and compares this with access to the ICJ and ECJ. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is contrasted with that of the two selected courts. The sources of law available to the Tribunal are discussed and contrasted to those of the two courts. Lastly, the enforcement of law in SADC is contrasted to what applies in relation to the selected courts. In each selected area, similarities and differences between the Tribunal and the two courts are noted and critically evaluated. Further, rules and principles developed by the two selected courts are explored in depth with a view to identifying those which could be of use to the Tribunal. Recommendations are made on rules and principles which could be of use to the Tribunal and on possible improvements to the SADC treaty regime. / Constitutional, International and Indigenous Law / LL.D.

v anglickém jazyce - English abstract Protection of Right to Fair Trial in Relation to Preliminary Ruling Proceedings Right to fair trial is one of fundamental human rights, which enables individuals to effectively invoke their rights and freedoms before a lawful, impartial and independent court. In Europe, the protection of this right is guaranteed at a multi-layer level, whose layers interact: first layer is formed by constitutional orders of individual States, second layer by institutions of European Union, in particular the Court of Justice of the European Union, and a third one, that of the European Court for Human Rights. In the European Union, the Treaties have introduced the mechanism of preliminary ruling with the aim of preserving unity within the Union and of ensuring coherent interpretation and application of European law by the courts of the Member States. Preliminary ruling proceedings ensure effective cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Art. 267 TFEU provides for an obligation to request a preliminary ruling for national courts of last instance (if none of the CILFIT case law conditions is met). Breach of this obligation may entail violation of right to fair trial at all three layers of human rights protection in Europe. Each European...