The aim of this thesis is to describe the fundamental issues related to the future accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and to provide an overall understanding of the issue. To fulfil this objective, the first part of the thesis deals with the current situation in the european human rights protection system. It introduces the protection system of the Council of Europe as well as the system of protection provided by the European Union. This part aims to describe relationships between them and also gives the overview of the development of the question of accession and of the main features defining the autonomy of the European Union law. The second part then turns the attention to the legal instruments which make it possible European Union to accede. This part provides an analysis of the Accession agreement on the accession of the European Union to the Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which contains legal, institutional and technical solutions of the European Union's incorporation into the Convention system. This analysis serves as a basis for the next part of the thesis, which focuses on the recent Opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union 2/13. In this opinion Court found...

Aufgrund des wachsenden Bedarfs an kohärenter Interaktion zwischen dem Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte, dem Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union und den Gerichten der EMRK-Mitgliedstaaten, untersucht diese Arbeit die Problematik von Kompetenzkonflikten, die die Glaubwürdigkeit der europäischen und nationalen Gerichtshöfe untergraben und die Effektivität des gerichtlichen Rechtsschutzes in Europa schwächen, und schlägt die Lösungen vor, um Rechtsprechungskonflikte zwischen den Gerichtshöfen zu verringern. Es erfolgt eine Betrachtung der Fragen, wie Inkonsistenzen der gerichtlichen Rechtsprechung der europäischen und nationalen Gerichte vermieden werden können, wie der Beitritt der EU zur EMRK angegangen werden kann und wie das Piloturteilsverfahren des EGMR und nationalen gerichtlichen Überprüfungsverfahren wirksam funktionieren kann. Die Arbeit kommt zu dem Schluss, dass es für die Koordination der Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Gerichten wichtig ist, ihre Interaktionen zu verstärken, indem bewährte Verfahren auf allen Ebenen ausgetauscht werden. Um eine tiefere Integration der Staaten in die europäische und internationale Gemeinschaft zu erreichen und das Risiko von sich widersprechenden gerichtlichen Entscheidungen zu reduzieren, wird von den Mitgliedstaaten erwartet, dass sie ihre Verpflichtungen aus dem EU-Recht und der EMRK verlässlich erfüllen, und die europäischen Gerichtshöfe werden ihrerseits die Möglichkeit eines Eingriffs in die Souveränität der Staaten ausschlieβen lassen. Nur wenn einvernehmlich beschlossene Lösungen angenommen werden, wird eine größere Kohärenz in Rechtsprechung der europäischen und nationalen Gerichtshöfe erreicht und ein einheitliches System zum Schutz der Menschenrechte gewährleistet. / In light of the growing need to establish a coherent relationship between the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the courts of the ECHR member states, this study explores the challenges of jurisdictional competition that undermine the credibility of the courts and weaken the effectiveness of judicial protection of fundamental rights in Europe, and suggests ways to reduce emerging judicial tensions between these courts. It examines how to avoid inconsistencies in judicial practices of the European and national courts, how to approach accession of the EU to the ECHR, and how to ensure effective functioning of the pilot judgment mechanism and national judicial review procedures. It concludes that in order to coordinate cooperation between the courts it is important to strengthen their interactions through adhering to best practices at all levels. To pursue deeper integration of states into the European and international community and minimise the chance of rendering contradicting judgments by the courts, member states are expected to comply faithfully with their obligations under EU law and the ECHR, and the European courts shall exclude the possibility of encroachment on state sovereignty. Only if mutually agreed solutions are adopted will a greater consistency in their case law be achieved and a uniform system of protection of human rights ensured.

Le statut juridique de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l'Homme, qui a fait l'objet de controverses lors de son adoption, a évolué depuis. Sur le plan international, la Déclaration universelle fait désormais partie du corpus juridique du droit interne de l'ONU et a été reconnue comme un instrument obligatoire par la doctrine et les organes judiciaires et quasi-judiciaires. Sur le plan national, elle a été incorporée dans de nombreux ordres internes en suivant des dynamiques propres à quatre espaces transrégionaux (Common Law, Amérique Latine, Europe et Afrique). Cette double évolution a modifié le statut intrinsèque de la DUDH, qui fait désormais partie des sources non-conventionnelles du droit obligatoire, bien que certains ordres juridiques refusent d'admettre sa force contraignante. Son applicabilité repose ainsi sur la formulation des droits qu'elle énonce. / The legal status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was subject to controversy at the time it was adopted, has evolved since then. At the international level, the Universal Declaration has become part of the United Nations legal corpus and has been recognized as a binding instrument by publicists and judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. At the national level, it has been incorporated into many domestic legal systems following dynamics related to four trans-regional areas (Common Law, Latin America, Europe and Africa). This double evolution has changed the intrinsic status of the UDHR, which is now part of the non-conventional sources of mandatory law, though some legal systems deny its binding force. Its applicability is therefore based on the formulation of the rights it contains.

Le droit d’agir devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme est assurément unique dansl’ordre juridique international. Erigé en « pierre angulaire » du système européen de sauvegarde,bénéficie-t-il pour autant d’une protection à la hauteur de cette qualification? L’engorgementmanifeste de la Cour de Strasbourg place cette interrogation dans une actualité perpétuelle.L’étude de ce droit processuel supranational illustre l’existence simultanée de deux courantsprétoriens aux effets diamétralement opposés sur l’exercice du droit d’agir : l’un souple, provictima, qui ouvre largement le prétoire de la Cour et l’autre restreignant a contrario son accès. Sil’approche souple satisfait naturellement l’intérêt individuel des requérants, elle permet égalementà la Cour de bâtir un ordre public européen de protection des droits de l’Homme. Parallèlement,l’interprétation stricte des conditions d’accès repose sur la responsabilisation des acteurs dumécanisme européen et sous-tend un filtrage rigoureux des affaires individuelles. Le droit d’agirreprésente, par conséquent, une composante d’un système de protection de nature« constitutionnelle » évoluant aux rythmes des liens tissés entre les deux courants prétoriensévoqués. C’est en effet par un mouvement pendulaire entre l’ouverture et la fermeture du prétoirede la Cour de Strasbourg que la garantie durable du droit d’agir peut être assurée. / The right of action in front of the European Court of Human Rights is certainly unparalleled in theinternational legal order. In the light of the constant congestion at the Strasbourg Court, one canonly ask if this right is genuinely guaranteed as the corner stone that is intended to be in theEuropean system of protection. The analysis of this supranational procedural right reflects theexistence of two distinct case law dynamics that influence the right of action: the pro victimaeffect, widening the access to the Court, and the opposite restraining effect. The first effect, moreflexible, not only favors the individual interest of the plaintiff, but also allows the Court todevelop the European public order of human rights protection. In parallel, the restraining effect onthe grounds of access to the Court entails a rigorous filtering of the individual cases, in order toachieve an increased accountability on human rights protection both of States and individuals.Therefore, the right of action represents the component of what can be nowadays qualified of a« constitutional » system of Human rights protection. Moreover, the alternate dynamics, closingand opening access to the Court, describe a pendula movement that is essential for a sustainableright of action.

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...

1 Summary The public administration itself is bound by applicable laws rules. Therefore, in case of breach of individual rights stemming from the legal system of the Czech Republic, every person is guaranteed a strictly legal procedure with corresponding legal mechanisms, which aim to remedy of status cause by unlawfull action or inaction of the public administration. Moreover, if conditions laid down by European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are met, an individual has a right to apply to the European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg) for a revision of a challenged act of public administration, which is considered to be as a final and conclusive from the point of view of national law. The object of this Thesis focuses, in particular, on analysis of individual means of protection of rights in public administration and their mutual relationships between them at level of legal regulation de lege ferenda. Also, it cannot be disregarded the assessment of effect of courts' decisions or doctrine, including stating own knowledge based on the practice particularly in the area of administrative law. The Thesis focuses on the issue of the protection of individual public rights. As a consequence, legal means designed to provide protection of law in objective sense (that is...

La tesi ha per oggetto l’autotutela amministrativa, specialmente quella c.d. decisoria “spontanea”, ovvero quell’insieme di poteri che consentono all’amministrazione di riesaminare i propri provvedimenti e di rimuoverli a vario titolo.
Di questi poteri si è indagato il fondamento dogmatico e positivo. La questione del fondamento è stata per lunghi anni affrontata dalla dottrina e dalla giurisprudenza in termini totalmente pre-critici e non problematici: l’esistenza di questi poteri era semplicemente scontata e le riflessioni sulla loro base giuridica si esaurivano perlopiù nella constatazione della loro necessità nell’immemore consenso circa la loro ammissibilità. Negli ultimi anni, invece, una parte degli Autori ha disconosciuto la natura implicita e per così dire “originaria” di questi poteri e ne ha perciò patrocinato la stretta riconduzione al principio di legalità: in altre parole, l’annullamento e la revoca non sarebbero affatto conseguenza della c.d. inesauribilità del potere amministrativo – negata da questa dottrina – e sarebbero perciò oggi ammissibili unicamente nei casi e nei modi disciplinati dalle due norme introdotte nella legge sul procedimento nel 2005. Ciò a garanzia della certezza dei rapporti giuridici e del legittimo affidamento dei destinatari dei provvedimenti ampliativi. Secondo un filone ricostruttivo in pare contrastante con il primo, altri Autori hanno inteso valorizzare gli elementi de iure condito a favore della obbligatorietà dell’avvio del procedimento di riesame, auspicandone contemporaneamente la generalizzazione, nell’ottica di una più complessiva trasformazione dell’annullamento d’ufficio in un nuovo istituto ibrido, rispondente alla funzione di alternative dispute risolution system o, se si vuole, di ricorso gerarchico. Per le stesse ragioni, l’istituto dovrebbe perdere il carattere ampiamente discrezionale, in favore di una vincolatezza totale o parziale. Questo secondo “fronte di attacco” alla ricostruzione tradizionale intende offrire soluzione al venir meno del sistema dei controlli di legalità sull’azione amministrativa. Lo studio ha sottoposto a verifica entrambi i filoni evolutivi richiamati, discostandosi dal secondo e, pur accogliendo parte delle argomentazioni ad esso sottostanti, anche dal primo. Quanto alla teoria dell’esauribilità del potere amministrativo, oggetto della prima linea evolutiva, si è ritenuto di condividere le considerazioni circa la tutela dell’affidamento degli interessati e della stabilità dei rapporti giuridici. È parsa tuttavia meglio rispondente alle categorie generali e alle esigenze del sistema (anche sulla base di una visione del diritto amministrativo quale “diritto dei terzi”, per natura volto alla tutela dell’interesse generale e non solo dell’interesse privato particolare coinvolto dall’esercizio del potere) la conservazione della tradizionale inesauribilità del potere, seppur assai mitigata, nella pratica, con riferimento all’esercizio dei poteri di ritiro degli atti favorevoli ai privati il cui affidamento sia concretamente meritevole di tutela. La natura discrezionale dell’annullamento d’ufficio (e della revoca), sottoposta a critica dalla seconda linea evolutiva, viene difesa sia sul piano del diritto positivo e pretorio (attraverso la riconduzione dei principali casi di annullamento c.d. doveroso al modello generale), sia sul piano delle categorie generali, a partire dalla natura dei poteri coinvolti e dall’analisi delle posizioni giuridiche dei soggetti interessati dai procedimenti di secondo grado. / The thesis focuses on the Italian system of so called autoprotection or selfprotection. This expression refers to the powers of public administration to revoke its own acts when deemed necessary to repair a vice of legitimacy or a vice of opportunity, without being bind to resort to the courts. Given the aim of this powers – the same of first grade powers plus a semi-judicial one – they are usually meant by judges and scholars as “widely discretionary”. Furthermore, it has always been believed that the choice to activate the correspondent proceeding is totally free for public administration; consequently, a demand of interested parties does not make binding the start of the procedure, opposite to what happens with administrative appeal proceedings. In recent years ECJ, ECHR and national case law has emboldened the limits to selfredress, making clear that legitimate expectations and the public interest to legal certainty must be taken into consideration and given sufficient protection. Lately, also the Legislator followed, making the annulment and the revocation harder to be put in effect when the first act is favorable to the addressed subject. In such cases, the revocation cannot be ordered for a mere reconsideration of already known circumstances (ius poenitendi) but only if new ones show up. At the same time, ex officio annulment is precluded after 18 months from the issuing of the first act, instead of the previous general limit of a “reasonable time”. On the other hand, the case law has apparently pointed out some hypothesis of mandatory annulment, such as for “anticomunitarian acts” and cost-producing acts. Based on these two orientation, some scholars suggested a global rethinking of the self-protection, its bases and its rules. The study analyzes the case law and the latest legislative reforms, proving that no mandatory annulment exists in the Italian legal system. Therefore, nor the ECJ principle of equivalence nor other principles require that selfredress become generally obliged. The thesis also aims to prove that selfprotection remains a discretionary power, in order to ensure that the contrasting needs (the rule of law on the one hand, and the legal certainty and legitimate expectation on the other hand) can be properly balanced in every decision, according to the Constitutional provision of article 97, which requires that both impartiality and good administration are pursued.

Bien que non conçue initialement comme une Convention centrée sur l’enfant, laConvention européenne des droits de l’homme a généré, grâce à l’interprétation dynamique de laCour européenne des droits de l’homme, la jurisprudence la plus abondante de tous les instrumentsde ce type concernant les droits de l’enfant. Disposant d’un espace juridique favorable à uneinterprétation dynamique en vue de protéger les droits de l’enfant, la Cour européenne manque detexte sur lequel elle peut fonder une interprétation favorable aux droits de l’enfant. C’est ainsiqu’elle se réfère principalement à la Convention internationale des droits de l’enfant, l’instrumentde protection spécifique des droits de l’enfant le plus précis et le plus adapté. A travers lamobilisation des dispositions de la Convention internationale des droits de l’enfant et l’intégrationde la notion de l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant contenue dans cet instrument dans son raisonnement laCour européenne utilise cette Convention comme instrument de construction de sa proprejurisprudence relative à la protection spécifique des droits de l’enfant. Mais si l’intégration de cetteConvention dans le raisonnement de la Cour européenne constitue un facteur d’harmonisation dansla mesure où elle incite les Etats membres du Conseil de l’Europe à mettre en oeuvre ce traitéinternational tout en leur fournissant une interprétation commune de ses dispositions, aucuneuniformité absolue ne s’impose. L’étude de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne souligne savolonté croissante de faire de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme un instrumentconventionnel subsidiaire de la protection spécifique des droits de l’enfant. / Although not originally designed as a child-centered Convention, the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights generated through the dynamic interpretation of the European Courtof Human Rights, the most abundant case law of all the instruments of this type on the rights of thechild. With a favorable legal space to protect child’s rights, the European Court lacks a text onwhich it can base an interpretation on. That is why it mainly refers to the Convention on the Rightsof the Child, which is the most detailed and the most suitable Convention for protecting child’srights specifically. Through the mobilization of the UN Convention on child's rights and theintegration of the concept of the best interest of the child contained in this instrument in itsreasoning, the European Court uses this Convention as a tool to construct its own case law on thespecific protection of child’s rights. But if the integration of this Convention in the reasoning of theEuropean Court is a factor of harmonization to the extent that it encourages the Member States ofthe Council of Europe to implement the international treaty while providing a commoninterpretation its provisions, no absolute uniformity is required. The study of the European Court’scase law underlines its growing will to make the European Convention on Human Rights asubsidiary conventional instrument to child’s rights protection.

No description available.

La première partie de l’étude est consacrée à l’invocation, intra et extra muros, du droit à un procès équitable. Sont analysés ainsi, dans un premier temps, l’applicabilité directe de l’article 6 et la subsidiarité de la Convention par rapport au droit national et de la Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme par rapport aux juridictions nationales. Le droit à un procès équitable étant un droit jurisprudentiel, l’étude se focalise, dans un second temps, sur l’invocabilité des arrêts de la Cour Européenne et plus précisément sur l’invocabilité directe de l’arrêt qui constate une violation du droit à un procès équitable dans une affaire mettant en cause l’Etat et l’invocabilité de l’interprétation conforme à l’arrêt qui interprète l’article 6 dans une affaire mettant en cause un Etat tiers. L’introduction dans l’ordre juridique français et hellénique de la possibilité de réexamen de la décision pénale définitive rendue en violation de la Convention a fait naitre un nouveau droit d’accès à la Cour de cassation lequel trouve son terrain de prédilection aux violations de l’article 6 et constitue peut-être le pas le plus important pour le respect du droit à un procès équitable après l’acceptation (par la France et la Grèce) du droit de recours individuel. Quant au faible fondement de l’autorité de la chose interprétée par la Cour Européenne, qui est d’ailleurs un concept d’origine communautaire, cela explique pourquoi un dialogue indirect entre la Cour Européenne et la Cour de cassation est possible sans pour autant changer en rien l’invocabilité de l’interprétation conforme et le fait que l’existence d’un précédent oblige la Cour de cassation à motiver l’interprétation divergente qu’elle a adoptée.La seconde partie de l’étude, qui est plus volumineuse, est consacrée aux garanties de bonne administration de la justice (article 6§1), à la présomption d’innocence (article 6§2), aux droits qui trouvent leur fondement conventionnel dans l’article 6§1 mais leur fondement logique dans la présomption d’innocence et aux droits de la défense (article 6§3). Sont ainsi analysés le droit à un tribunal indépendant, impartial et établi par la loi, le délai raisonnable, le principe de l’égalité des armes, le droit à une procédure contradictoire, le droit de la défense d’avoir la parole en dernier, la publicité de l’audience et du prononcé des jugements et arrêts, l’obligation de motivation des décisions, la présomption d’innocence, dans sa dimension procédurale et personnelle, le « droit au mensonge », le droit de l’accusé de se taire et de ne pas contribuer à son auto-incrimination, son droit d’être informé de la nature et de la cause de l’accusation et de la requalification envisagée des faits, son droit au temps et aux facilités nécessaires à la préparation de la défense, y compris notamment la confidentialité de ses communications avec son avocat et le droit d’accès au dossier, son droit de comparaître en personne au procès, le droit de la défense avec ou sans l’assistance d’un avocat, le droit de l’accusé d’être représenté en son absence par son avocat, le droit à l’assistance gratuite d’un avocat lorsque la situation économique de l’accusé ne permet pas le recours à l’assistance d’un avocat mais les intérêts de la justice l’exigent, le droit d’interroger ou faire interroger les témoins à charge et d’obtenir la convocation et l’interrogation des témoins à décharge dans les mêmes conditions que les témoins à charge et le droit à l’interprétation et à la traduction des pièces essentielles du dossier. L’analyse est basée sur la jurisprudence strasbourgeoise et centrée sur la position qu’adoptent la Cour de cassation française et l’Aréopage. / The first party of the study is dedicated to the invocation of the right to a fair trial intra and extra muros and, on this basis, it focuses on the direct applicability of Article 6 and the subsidiarity of the Convention and of the European Court of Human Rights. Because of the fact that the right to a fair trial is a ‘‘judge-made law’’, the study also focuses on the invocability of the judgments of the European Court and more precisely on the direct invocability of the European Court’s judgment finding that there has been a violation of the Convention and on the request for an interpretation in accordance with the European Court’s decisions. The possibility of reviewing the criminal judgment made in violation of the Convention has generated a new right of access to the Court of cassation which particularly concerns the violations of the right to a fair trial and is probably the most important step for the respect of the right to a fair trial after enabling the right of individual petition. As for the weak conventional basis of the authority of res interpretata (“autorité de la chose interprétée”), this fact explains why an indirect dialogue between the ECHR and the Court of cassation is possible but doesn’t affect the applicant’s right to request an interpretation in accordance with the Court’s decisions and the duty of the Court of cassation to explain why it has decided to depart from the (non-binding) precedent.The second party of the study is bigger than the first one and is dedicated to the guarantees of the proper administration of justice (Article 6§1), the presumption of innocence (Article 6§2), the rights which find their conventional basis on the Article 6§1 but their logical explanation to the presumption of innocence and the rights of defence (Article 6§3). More precisely, the second party of the study is analyzing the right to an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, the right to a hearing within a reasonable time, the principle of equality of arms, the right to adversarial proceedings, the right of the defence to the last word, the right to a public hearing and a public pronouncement of the judgement, the judge’s duty to state the reasons for his decision, the presumption of innocence, in both its procedural and personal dimensions, the accused’s right to lie, his right to remain silent, his right against self-incrimination, his right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation and the potential re-characterisation of the facts, his right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence, including in particular the access to the case-file and the free and confidential communication with his lawyer, his right to appear in person at the trial, his right to defend either in person or through legal assistance, his right to be represented by his counsel, his right to free legal aid if he hasn’t sufficient means to pay for legal assistance but the interests of justice so require, his right to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him and his right to the free assistance of an interpreter and to the translation of the key documents. The analysis is based on the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and focuses on the position taken by the French and the Greek Court of Cassation (Areopagus) on each one of the above mentioned rights.