Tobias Lock, Is Private Enforcement of EU Law Through State Liability a Myth? – An Assessment 20 Years after Francovich

European Law Review, Volume 35, Number 6, December 2010

European Law Review, Volume 35, Number 6, December 2010

Editorial. And So It Begins…
Eilís Ferran, Can Soft Law Bodies be Effective? The Special Case of the European Systemic Risk Board
Tobias Lock, EU Accession to the ECHR: Implications for Judicial Review in Strasbourg
Maria Lee, Risk and Beyond: EU Regulation of Nanotechnology
Michael Connolly, Victimising Third Parties: The Equality Directives, the European Convention on Human Rights, and EU General Principles
Bart Driessen, Analysis and Reflections Delegated legislation after the Treaty of Lisbon: An analysis of Article 290 TFEU
Steve Peers, Supremacy, Equality and Human Rights Comment on Küciikdeveci (C-555/07)
Katarina Pijetlovic, Another classic of EU sports jurisprudence: Legal implications of Olympique Lyonnais SASP v Olivier Bernard and Newcastle UFC (C-325/08)
David Keyaerts, Ex ante evaluation of EU legislation intertwined with judicial review? Comment on Vodafone Ltd v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (C-58/08)
Book Reviews

Tobias Lock, Accession of the EU to the ECHR: Who Would Be Responsible in Strasbourg?



Tobias LockAccession of the EU to the ECHR: Who Would Be Responsible in Strasbourg? (October 1, 2010). Available at SSRN

Abstract:

Chief among the many issues, which an accession of the EU to the ECHR, will raise, is the question of the appropriate respondent before the European Court of Human Rights in cases involving EU law. EU law is typically implemented by the Member States. Against whom should an individual address their individual complaint in a case where they argue that a violation of the ECHR can be found in EU law: the EU or the Member State? This paper discusses various options and proposals made in the wake of the negotiations, which started in July 2010. Both actions and omissions will be dealt with. It is argued that a solution must not only protect the autonomy of EU law but at the same time offer an effective remedy for the individual.


European Constitutional Law Review, Volume 5, Issue 3, October 2009

European Constitutional Law Review, Volume 5, Issue 3, October 2009

Editorial: Jan-Herman Reestman, Leonard F.M. Besselink, On the Lissabon-Urteil: Democracy and a Democratic Paradox

The Editors and Jan Komarek, The Czech Constitutional Court’s Second Decision on the Lisbon Treaty of 3 November 2009

Dieter Grimm, Defending Sovereign Statehood Against Transforming the Union Into a State

Jan-Herman Reestman, The Franco-German Constitutional Divide

Roland Bieber, ‘An Association of Sovereign States’

Tobias Lock, Why the European Union is not a State

René Barents, The Precedence of EU Law from the Perspective of Constitutional Pluralism

R.C. van Caenegem, Constitutional History: Chance or Grand Design?

Hans-Martien ten Napel, The European Court of Human Rights and Political Rights: The Need for more Guidance

Lorenzo Zucca, Montesquieu, Methodological Pluralism and Comparative Constitutional Law

Vasiliki Kosta, European Court of Justice Case C-213/07, Michaniki AE v. Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis, Ipourgos Epikratias

Tobias Lock, The ECJ and the ECtHR: The Future Relationship between the Two European Courts

ECHR Blog ne atrage atentia asupra unui articol interesant:

Tobias Lock, The ECJ and the ECtHR: The Future Relationship between the Two European Courts, Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, volume 8, no. 3/2009

Abstract

The current relationship between the two European courts has been discussed in some great detail while the future of that relationship has been widely neglected. This is somewhat surprising as the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and with it of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as well as the EU’s succession to the ECHR are probably going to take place before too long. The article first examines Article 52(3) of the Charter, which prescribes that the ECHR be the minimum standard of human rights in the EU. It is argued that Article 52 (3) does not entail a reference to the ECtHR’s case law so that the ECJ will not be bound by that case law. After an accession of the EU to the ECHR, it is likely that both courts will assert that they have exclusive jurisdiction over the ECHR in inter-state cases, which creates a jurisdictional conflict for which a solution must be found. In addition, the article explores whether after an accession, the Bosphorus case law will have a future and whether the dictum found in Opinion 1/91 will be applicable, according to which the ECJ is bound by the decisions of courts created by an international agreement to which the EC is a party.