{"id":481,"date":"2016-01-31T09:09:26","date_gmt":"2016-01-31T08:09:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/?post_type=publication&p=481"},"modified":"2025-09-10T11:21:05","modified_gmt":"2025-09-10T09:21:05","slug":"strasbourg-and-luxembourg-a-dialogue-between-law-and-politics","status":"publish","type":"publication","link":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/publication\/strasbourg-and-luxembourg-a-dialogue-between-law-and-politics\/","title":{"rendered":"Strasbourg and Luxembourg: A Dialogue between Law and Politics"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Julia Rackow<\/p>\n

Extrait<\/strong><\/p>\n

L\u2019article examine l\u2019\u00e9volution du dialogue entre la CJUE et la CEDH dans le contexte politique en focalisant sur le conflit apparu r\u00e9cemment dans l\u2019Avis 2\/13 et la jurisprudence sur le syst\u00e8me de Dublin. Une divergence mat\u00e9rielle s\u2019est produite dans les cas concernant le transfert des demandeurs d\u2019asile selon les R\u00e8glements de Dublin. Dans l\u2019affaire\u00a0Tarakhel\u00a0<\/em>la CEDH a rejet\u00e9 la solution de la CJUE dans l\u2019affaire\u00a0N.S. and M.E.\u00a0<\/em>Ainsi, cette derni\u00e8re avait d\u00e9cid\u00e9 que la confiance mutuelle entre les \u00c9tats Membre requ\u00e9rait seulement l\u2019examen si le syst\u00e8me d\u2019asile entier de l\u2019\u00e9tat accueillant manifestait des d\u00e9fauts syst\u00e9miques. De cette mani\u00e8re, les courts ouvraient un dialogue qui affecte aussi les tribunaux nationaux dans la mesure qu\u2019ils doivent appliquer des crit\u00e8res contradictoires. L\u2019Avis 2\/13, dans laquelle la CJUE a rejet\u00e9 l\u2019adh\u00e9sion de l\u2019UE \u00e0 la CEDH, assombrit ce dialogue. Parmi les principales objections contre l\u2019accord d\u2019adh\u00e9sion se trouvent \u00e9galement que la confiance mutuelle entre les \u00c9tats Membre de l\u2019UE et l\u2019autonomie du droit communautaire pourrait causer des conflits avec la juridiction de Strasbourg. Ces d\u00e9veloppements se pr\u00e9sentent dans le cadre de l\u2019environnement politique dans lequel les deux courts doivent maintenir leur l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 vers les \u00c9tats Membres. Le dialogue des juges joue un r\u00f4le important dans le conflit actuel et aussi renforce en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral le syst\u00e8me europ\u00e9en de protection des droits fondamentaux et la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 des deux cours envers leurs \u00c9tats Membres.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n

This article examines the evolution of the dialogue between the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in its political context focussing on the current conflict raised by Opinion 2\/13, as well as the case law concerning the Dublin system. A substantive divergence between both courts occurred in the cases concerning the transfer of asylum seekers under the Dublin Regulations. In\u00a0Tarakhel,<\/em>\u00a0the ECtHR opposed the outcomes in the cases\u00a0N.S. and M.E.\u00a0<\/em>where the CJEU had held that the principle of mutual trust between EU Member States only required them to assess whether the entire asylum system of the receiving state was deficient. The courts entered into a judicial dialogue that also affects national courts as they are confronted with diverging standards. The CJEU\u2019s ruling in Opinion 2\/13, where it declared the Accession Agreement incompatible with EU law, overshadows this dialogue. One of the CJEU\u2019s principal concerns with the Accession Agreement was that the mutual trust between EU Member States and the autonomy of EU law might cause conflicts with Strasbourg\u2019s jurisdiction. These developments are related to the political environment in which both courts have to maintain their legitimacy in their respective Member States. The dialogue between judges is an important tool in the current conflict, and on a more general level it strengthens the European human rights protection system, as well as both courts\u2019 legitimacy vis-\u00e0-vis their Member States.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Acc\u00e8s au texte – Access to full text<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/form>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"template":"","publication_tax":[47],"class_list":["post-481","publication","type-publication","status-publish","hentry","publication_tax-working-paper"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/481","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/publication"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/481\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":499,"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/481\/revisions\/499"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=481"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"publication_tax","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceje.meig.ch\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication_tax?post=481"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}